Reddit mentions: The best theology books

Hi /u/iwillyes, I'm glad you're here! Let me start by talking a bit about what the Reformed tradition of Christianity is.

The Reformed Tradition is a branch of Protestant Christianity that developed during the Reformation in Switzerland, Scotland, France and the low countries. John Calvin was (and is) the most influential theologian in the Reformed tradition. While we share many similarities with Anglicans, Baptists and Lutherans we are usually seen as a distinct strand. We disagree on the meaning of both Baptism and the Eucharist, for example (in both regards Lutherans are closer to Catholics). Pentecostals and Anabaptist are quite different.

In terms of what makes the Reformed different from other Protestant groups, I love this quote by Cornelius Plantinga:

>>Our accents lie more on the sovereignty of God, on the authority of Scripture, on the need for disciplined holiness in personal Christian life, and finally, on Christianity as a religion of the Kingdom.

That emphasis on the sovereignty of God over all things is in my mind what most clearly distinguishes the reformed tradition. Part of that is understanding God to be sovereign in salvation - what is commonly known as the five points of Calvinism. Basically we believe that because of we are dead in our sin, man is utterly unable to do anything to save himself - even unable to turn to God. It is only through God's grace of drawing us to him that we are able to have the faith that saves us. This means that we contribute nothing to our own salvation - it is entirely a work of God.

In the U.S. there are two main groups of Reformed churches: Presbyterians (the Scottish Reformed) and the Dutch Reformed. Historically Scottish Reformed have put a bit more emphasis on personal piety (the Puritans are part of this group) while the Dutch Reformed have put slightly more emphasis on declaring the Lordship of Christ over all creation. But, we are very, very similar. The Reformed tradition is a deeply confessional one. We hold to historic documents that describe what we understand scripture to teach on a wide range of matters. The Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Dutch Reformed hold to the Three Forms of Unity. While different documents, the two sets of confessions essentially teach the same doctrine.

In terms of churches the large (100k+ members) Presbyterian denominations in the US are the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Chrurch in America. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and ECO: A Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The PC(USA) is a more "liberal" church while the others are more "conservative" to varying degrees. The two large Dutch Reformed denominations are the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. There are also many smaller Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Many of them are part of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council.

What complicates things a bit is that in recent years, many Christians in other traditions have started using "reformed" to mean they have a Calvinistic view of salvation, even if they don't fit into the broader reformed tradition in other ways. You will find a lot of Baptists who have a Calvinistic view of salvation, but not of the sacraments or the church, for example. This sub tends to attract both the more conservative branch of the Reformed tradition as well as those who just have a Calvinistic view of salvation.

In terms of books, my number one recommendation for you is Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith. It's a quick easy read best digested in small parts. It does a great job of providing an overview of the Reformed tradition that is accessible, theological, and pastoral. It's aimed at those who have a 'come-to-Calvin' moment from within other theological traditions (Smith was pentecostal), but would benefit everyone.

Also read through some of the Reformed Confessions. The best place to start is with the Heidelberg Catechim and the Belgic Confession. If you want a more modern approach, I'd encourage you to also read the Christian Reformed Church's Contemporary Testimony Our World Belongs To God, too.

Other good "intro" level books:

• Reformed: What It Means, Why It Matters by Bob DeMoor. This is more of a booklet that a full book. It'd be a great option for a newcomers class at church.
  
  
• Deep Down Faith by Cornelius Plantinga. This one is a devotional aimed at young adults, but an excellent explanation of Reformed Faith.
  
  
• Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul. This is the book that made me a Calvinist. Best explanation and defense of TULIP out there. Sproul's The Holiness of God is anothe excellent choice, as are all of his books.
  
  
• Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today's World by Richard Mouw. Another book focused on TULIP. This one's goal is to show how the doctrines of Grace affect the way we live out our lives and correcting common misunderstandings about Calvinism.
  
  
  Once you feel ready for higher level stuff, I recommend:
  
  
• Reformed Theology by Michael Allen. If you want a book that covers the breadth of Reformed Theology at a deep level than Smith or DeMoor, this is for you (think intro college level).
  
  
• Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by Michael Allen and Scott Swain. This book is a clarion call: “to be Reformed means to go deeper into true catholicity, not to move away from catholicity.” A must read.
  
  
• Reformed Dogmatics (Abridged) by Herman Bavink. My appreciation for Bavink grows every time I read him. This abridged version is much cheaper and more accessible than the full four volume edition.
  
  
• Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. This one needs no explanation. Get this one if you want to splurge for a nice reference edition, the Beveridge Translation is available for much less (and free online).
  

Wow, the more you describe, the more I see us having much in common! I would love to see the sights of Rome and medieval Europe. I'm studying Ancient Rome in university right now, and I'm planning on majoring in Medieval Studies, so that will be helpful in giving context to these old European buildings! And I hope you can continue to attend Mass and appreciate the traditions, instead of feeling resentful towards them :)

I do not believe that God is the same as the universe. To reduce some philosophical arguments extremely, God's nature is absolutely simple, not composed of parts. Because God exists necessarily (rather than depending upon anything else in order to exist), there is no way in which God's nature could change. Things that exist in a finite, limited sense (like you, me, a tree, the universe) are defined by the fact that they change, that they have the potential to become something that they are not. I don't exist necessarily, but contingently.

There are definitely a lot of implications that need to be worked out, which I definitely haven't (but I'm pretty sure other philosophers have). I'm not necessarily trying to prove God with this, I'm just giving you a rationale for why I don't think God and the universe are the same. However, I do believe that all things depend on God's existence in order to exist. Because things exist contingently, depending upon things outside of their own existence in order to be, if that is the case with everything in the universe, then nothing could ever come to exist in the first place on its own. As I understand it, there must be some source that is by definition independent of anything (that is, God) that sustains the existence (in an ontological sense) of everything that can't sustain itself. So the relationship that I see between God and the world is that all things come from God (not in the sense that a son comes from a father, in which the former does not cease to exist when the latter dies; more like the way that light comes from a flame, where the blowing out of a flame results in the end of its light), that God has set the laws of nature in motion, and even sustains those laws for all eternity, as everything ultimately depends on God's existence at all times. In this way, I see finite reality to be inherently good, because it has been created by God, and it depends upon God's existence at every moment.

So yes, I very much agree with Thomas Paine. I'm very interested in the topic of aesthetics, and I'd like to read the writings of philosophers like Hegel and Burke on the nature of the sublime that exists in nature. I find creation to be one of the clearest reflections of God's power.

The most influential book that has informed my thinking is The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bentley Hart. It's an incredible work, a bit difficult to get through at times because it gets kind of technical, but overall it is easy to follow. It's basically a 300+ page definition of God that is found in pretty much all major theistic religious traditions and philosophies. Highly recommended!

One philosopher whose work I love is an Anglican writer named Roger Scruton. He's Anglican, and defends Christianity, but he's not very dogmatic about it; in fact, as far as I know he doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. He draws more universal meditations out of Christianity that are more philosophical. He's written a lot of books, has a lot of lectures on YouTube, and is an all-around wonderful human being. My favourite that I have read is The Face of God. Another book that might be of interest is The Soul of the World, though I haven't read it, but I'm sure it's great. I hope this helps!

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Just because you feel that this is existentialism doesn't mean that it is existentialism. Existentialism for me is what it is defined to be, not what I feel that it is.

>Like “rationalism” and “empiricism,” “existentialism” is a term that belongs to intellectual history. Its definition is thus to some extent one of historical convenience. The term was explicitly adopted as a self-description by Jean-Paul Sartre, and through the wide dissemination of the postwar literary and philosophical output of Sartre and his associates—notably Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camus—existentialism became identified with a cultural movement that flourished in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s. Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber in Germany, Jean Wahl and Gabriel Marcel in France, the Spaniards José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno, and the Russians Nikolai Berdyaev and Lev Shestov. The nineteenth century philosophers, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, came to be seen as precursors of the movement. Existentialism was as much a literary phenomenon as a philosophical one. Sartre's own ideas were and are better known through his fictional works (such as Nausea and No Exit) than through his more purely philosophical ones (such as Being and Nothingness and Critique of Dialectical Reason), and the postwar years found a very diverse coterie of writers and artists linked under the term: retrospectively, Dostoevsky, Ibsen, and Kafka were conscripted; in Paris there were Jean Genet, André Gide, André Malraux, and the expatriate Samuel Beckett; the Norwegian Knut Hamsun and the Romanian Eugene Ionesco belong to the club; artists such as Alberto Giacometti and even Abstract Expressionists such as Jackson Pollock, Arshile Gorky, and Willem de Kooning, and filmmakers such as Jean-Luc Godard and Ingmar Bergman were understood in existential terms. By the mid 1970s the cultural image of existentialism had become a cliché, parodized in countless books and films by Woody Allen.

>It is sometimes suggested, therefore, that existentialism just is this bygone cultural movement rather than an identifiable philosophical position; or, alternatively, that the term should be restricted to Sartre's philosophy alone. But while a philosophical definition of existentialism may not entirely ignore the cultural fate of the term, and while Sartre's thought must loom large in any account of existentialism, the concept does pick out a distinctive cluster of philosophical problems and helpfully identifies a relatively distinct current of twentieth- and now twenty-first-century philosophical inquiry, one that has had significant impact on fields such as theology (through Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, and others) and psychology (from Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss to Otto Rank, R. D. Laing, and Viktor Frankl). What makes this current of inquiry distinct is not its concern with “existence” in general, but rather its claim that thinking about human existence requires new categories not found in the conceptual repertoire of ancient or modern thought; human beings can be understood neither as substances with fixed properties, nor as subjects interacting with a world of objects.

>On the existential view, to understand what a human being is it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us. The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances—“mind” and “body”—is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist, who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth) suffices.

>“Existentialism”, therefore, may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence. To approach existentialism in this categorial way may seem to conceal what is often taken to be its “heart” (Kaufmann 1968: 12), namely, its character as a gesture of protest against academic philosophy, its anti-system sensibility, its flight from the “iron cage” of reason. But while it is true that the major existential philosophers wrote with a passion and urgency rather uncommon in our own time, and while the idea that philosophy cannot be practiced in the disinterested manner of an objective science is indeed central to existentialism, it is equally true that all the themes popularly associated with existentialism—dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment, nothingness, and so on—find their philosophical significance in the context of the search for a new categorial framework, together with its governing norm.

Now onto your "post":

>Technically, nothing matters.

Technically? Technically by whom? Or is this just what you're saying, and you're placing technically in front of your opinion to make it sound like some well-established metaphysical fact (lol Kant)?

> The only thing that matters is what you perceive to matter.

I mean, in a Sartrian human-world realism I suppose so, but in an axiomatic sense. If you never take a thing as an intentional object then it can never matter to you. So insofar as the only thing to exist is that of which you are now consciously aware, then yes, the only thing that matters is that which you perceive to matter.

>However, since quite a few people believe that everything does happen for a reason, (ahem religion) we are stuck with conflict in our species.

Kant

>Since there is no explanation or proof of where humanity came from, a lot people tend to believe a powerful being with supreme intellect made us.

Kant

>The Bible was made by a group of very smart people to help ignorant people get along with each other/give a reason for people to have hope and contribute to society.

Oh, I didn't know this about the Holy Bible. Who were this group of "very smart people"? Given that the Bible was, afaik, written over centuries, this seems strenuous. And you say it like the Bible was written and then "poof!", the "ignorant people [of society]" now have hope and direction! This is, of course, ignoring the existence of the Greek/Roman pantheons, Zoroastrianism, etc, plus all the superstitions that people have held. Nope, "poof!" Bible was written, then "ignorant people" had hope to contribute to society.

But wait! There's more! I quote: "The only thing that matters is what you perceive to matter." So if people perceive the Bible/religion to matter, then it does matter! Ta da, bested by yourself.

>There is one thing that matters to me, and that is our species progression as a whole.

Okay, that's cool. Good goal to have. Maybe don't be so pretentious about it and some progress can be made in this regard. Because so far I see you arguing like this (ignoring the prefacing statement that "nothing matters"): 1) The only thing that matters is what is perceived to matter; 2) I perceive that religion doesn't matter; 3) therefore religion doesn't matter. What this way of thinking does is completely eliminate community from your consideration, because you have failed to accept what other people perceive to matter. What you are saying is so self-centred and egotistical in your complete dismissal of the experience of the rest of the world that it is appalling. What you are saying collapses to the following: "I am right and everyone else is wrong". Furthermore, you have failed to establish why "species progression" is the most important thing to care about, other than by the circularity of "because it is what I care about" and therefore "it is the only thing that matters" and therefore "it is the most important thing that matters".

>Bottom line is: Religion is good for helping ignorant/weak people back on their feet, but bad for progression of our species as a whole.

Again, you're just saying things. Soren Kierkegaard would disagree.

And, again, Kant.

Also, in reply to your edit of "I think you're just looking for someone to get defensive on this topic so you can provoke a reaction", this is incorrect. I'm just tired of edgelords like you posting your angsty bullshit and using existentialism as justification when you have clearly read no existentialism. I don't really care anymore though. I've said my piece, and I've already unsubscribed from this sub.

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

> Søren Kierkegaard’s denunciation of Hegelianism in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments (1846), one of his major works, culminated in his declaration that “subjectivity is truth” and “truth is subjectivity”. This presents a direct contradiction to Friedrich Hegel’s claim that Reason and Reality are essentially identical, that the truth is universal and that it can only be deduced through logic and reason.

The “subjectivity is truth”/“truth is subjectivity” thesis is not an outright rejection of reason’s capacity to grasp reality, but a limitation of the scope of that capacity in the specific domain of religious truth. It does not address the question of truth’s universality, since the truth in question is not propositional truth but truth-as-existentially-appropriated. Furthermore, Kierkegaard is not identical to Climacus or any of his pseudonyms. The pseudonyms are not mere pen names or masks intended to hide his identity. For this reason he writes:

“Once and for all I have solemnly asked that this be observed if someone wants to cite or quote any of my writings: if it is a pseudonymous work, cite or quote the pseudonym. As a concerned author I carry a great responsibility, and this is why I willingly do everything I can to insure that the communication is true. On the other hand, it is so easy to comply that I feel one should have no objection to indulging me in this. It is the fruit of long reflection, the why and how of my use of pseudonyms; I easily could write whole books about it. But if this distinction is not observed in citing and quoting, confusion and sometimes meaninglessness results” (Søren Kierkegaard’s Journals and Papers 6: 6567).

> This affirmation of the deeply personal, inward experience of each individual, as opposed to a rational or detached perspective of one’s relationship with the world is one of the distinctive characteristics of Kierkegaard’s philosophical views.

While it is true that Kierkegaard is more interested in deep-seated passion than a detached use of reason, he is more interested still in bringing both passion and reason alike “before God,” and in such a way that faith gives rise to action, to “works of love.” Even abstracting from his religious purposes, Kierkegaard can be just as critical of subjective sentimentalism as he is toward rationalism. Having an “experience” is not self-validating, as we see in his treatment of the case of his contemporary Adolph Peter Adler, who had claimed to have had a new revelation from Jesus Christ (on which see Kierkegaard’s The Book on Adler).

> Kierkegaard first introduces the three stages of life in Either/Or (1843), which was written under the pseudonym Victor Eremita (Latin for victorious hermit).

No, Eremita is only the pseudonymous editor of Either/Or. The book’s anonyms and pseudonyms include ‘A’, the aesthete; ‘B’, Judge William; Johannes the Seducer; and the Jylland pastor.

> The aesthete’s reaction to this sense of dread and futility is to ascend to the next stage, the Ethical.

This is not given in the book. Kierkegaard would maintain that it is the proper reaction, but not necessarily the one the aesthete will ultimately choose.

> Kierkegaard calls this type of hero a Knight of Infinite Resignation… According to Kierkegaard, the knight of faith…

The term actually comes from the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, not Kierkegaard himself. This is particularly important in the case of how we interpret Fear and Trembling, because Kierkegaard’s and de Silentio’s views sometimes differ significantly.

> the religious stage is built wholly on subjectivity, which is why Kierkegaard elevates it above the two other stages of existence.

It is unclear what is intended by “built wholly on subjectivity” here. The rest of the essay continues to portray Kierkegaard as a kind of subjectivist or relativist who holds that the religious person must be positively irrational to act as he or she does. This seems at odds with Kierkegaard’s view that we can have some knowledge of God through nature, and the fact that he does accept certain rational checks and balances when it comes to faith. With particular reference to Fear and Trembling, see this post.

> 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.

I agree with other recommendations around considering postponing the wedding, but I wouldn't break off the relationship yet... As a former agnostic myself, I used to find belief in the resurrection a bit of a stretch given how long ago it was and I felt like God had basically "been silent" for a few thousand years which didn't seem to make much sense to me. I started reading about miracles at Fatima and other Catholic Marian apparitions and doing my own independent research and realized that there was more than the material world can explain... I've attached a few books I read on my journey that were helpful but have tons more if she ends up having the interest in considering...

Miracle Detective - https://smile.amazon.com/Miracle-Detective-Randall-Sullivan-ebook/dp/B008RZKOFQ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=miracle+detective&qid=1572978404&sr=8-1

Fatima Prophecies - https://smile.amazon.com/Fatima-Prophecies-At-Doorstep-World-ebook/dp/B00534J76G/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Fatima+Prophecies%3A+At+the+Doorstep+of+the+World&qid=1572978579&sr=8-1

Resurrection- expensive and long but good- https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LUJDNE/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

​

Definitely keep everything in prayer as well, but it sounds like you definitely are being called to the truth of the Catholic faith, and you need to really consider how challenging it will be to raise kids in a "mixed" religious family. We'll be praying for you.

Lot of people in this thread giving some very bad or lazy responses. My undergraduate philosophy thesis was on Plantinga's freewill theodicy but my courses covered the breadth of religious philosophy and so I've actually had to read and discuss this book before.

I don't know how to do the symbols on my keyboard so apologies in advance but if you are looking for a book that provides an insanely comprehensive refutation of "modern-logic" formalized versions of the ontological argument, you want Jordan Howard Sobel's "Logic and Theism", which goes into great detail with the formal logic notation.

Sobel's explanation of why modal axiom S5 is superficially correct but entirely redundant and not applicable to this problem is as good as Mackie's but stated with needless complexity so for that you should read J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism for the goodies there. Mackie and Sobel both think that Plantinga crudely overextrapolates <>[]X-->[]X from <>X->[]<>X. Mackie does it better than I do.

The long and short of it is that Plantinga's argument, while more sophisticated than Anselm's in its formalization, is really not that much more sophisticated in its premises. Sobel hammers on the point that there is a crucial amphiboly on "maximally excellent in possible world X" between "maximally excellent [given the conditions of] possible world X" and "maximally excellent [and also existing in] possible world X" more than he needs to in an otherwise very efficient textbook. His more interesting counterclaim attacks another amphiboly in the inference from "<>[]X(^01&02) in W" to "[]X(^01&02) where X^01 & 02 can stand for whatever property he's looking to establish. He shows through the formulation that there is a "floating," unresolved <> in the argument that actually reduces the entire ontological argument to "<>x" where x is the entire ontological argument.

I won't be in front of the book for a few hours but if you like you can message me and I can try to scan or take pictures of the pages from his book, it's a little expensive to buy just to beat your friend in an argument, but I've never seen it refuted in print.

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).

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

So Anglican theology is deeply liturgical - i.e. we see our theology as being expressed, experienced, and enforced in our worship - "lex orandi, lex credendi." This principle comes to a zenith in our theology behind the sacraments, which has often relied on liturgical texts and actions in a way unique among other Christian churches. This makes our theology as much of an experience as it is a set of intellectual commitments (not to artificially split the two though). However, it means that Anglicans, especially today's Anglicans, often have an implicit theology behind the sacraments, a theology relying on liturgy more than explicit explanations, which can make expressing a coherent theology difficult.


Regardless, the first place you should go if you want a taste of Episcopal "sacramentality" today is our current worship, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Our service for Baptism begins on p.298 (be sure to look at the Baptismal Covenant on p.304). We have two rites for the Eucharist, Rite I on p.323 and Rite II on p.355. As an example of Episcopal sacramental theology, it is very significant that Baptism and Eucharist are considered important enough to warrant their own liturgies.

But don't just read the texts - attend worship to understand! Theology is practiced and trained by worship.

Two other documents in the Prayer Book are of note: first, a very brief contemporary Catechism, which covers the Sacraments on pp.857-861. The other are the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (dating back to the 16th century), which are not considered authoritative for Episcopalians today, but are an important historical document that highlights the deeply Reformed dimension of Anglicanism's development during the English Reformation (a fact that frankly embarrasses many today, for better or worse). Articles #25-31 cover the sacraments on pp.872-74.

Here's a link from a contemporary Episcopalian's attempt to coherently explain the basics of sacramental theology in our church today. It was written in response to a practice that he (rightly, imo) identified as a perversion of proper sacramentality: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/sacramental_theology_101_baptism_and_eucharist/

There are several good books on sacraments within Anglicanism by Anglican authors:

• Being Christian: Baptism, Bible, Eucharist, Prayer by Rowan Williams - an introductory book on the essentials of Christianity by a former Archbishop of Canterbury. Beautifully written, profound, short, and accessible.
  
  
• Inwardly Digest: The Prayer Book as Guide to a Spiritual Life by Derek Olsen - treats the Episcopal '79 BCP as a coherent system of spirituality. Also accessibly written for non-specialists. Derek Olsen is an amazing author and blogger in contemporary Anglo-Catholic circles. I believe this is the best work on our Prayer Book available today. Look especially for "Section 3 - The Holy Eucharist" for Episcopal sacramentality. You can read a rough draft of it at Olsen's blog here.
  
  
• The Study of Anglicanism - informative collection of essays. Look for "Part V - Church, Sacraments, and Ministry", especially V.4 ("Initiation" by David Holeton) and V.5 ("Holy Communion" by William R. Crockett)
  
  
• The Mystery of Baptism in the Anglican Tradition by Kenneth Stevenson - historical overview of baptismal theology
  
  
• The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition by H.R. McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson - historical overview of eucharistic theology
  
  
• A Guide to the Sacraments by John MacQuarrie - takes a more Anglo-Catholic view. MacQuarrie was a respected systematic theologian of the 20th century.
  
  
• "V. Anglicanism and Eucharistic Ecclesiology" and "VI. Anglicanism and Baptismal Ecclesiology" in The Identity of Anglicanism by Paul Avis - Avis is a major figure in the question of ecclesiology in Anglicanism, molded by his years in the Church of England's ecumenism office.
  
  
• The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by John Stott and J. Alec Motyer - both are evangelical authors. Stott in particular is well-regarded. I think this book is important because it displays the Reformed dimension of our sacramentality.
  
  I hope this post did not give you a heart attack.

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.

Okay, I think I have a better understanding of what you're asking for. In regards to actual techniques that you can use to better your life, I'm not sure how helpful Rose or Agamben would be.

​

Foucault ethical turn is not nearly as influential as his writing on governmentality, biopower, discipline etc. So I can't think of anyone who is directly working from Foucaults reflections on practices of freedom, life as art etc. However, i'm not a foucauldian scholar, but I'm sure there exists stuff our there. I did a google search and found this text, Foucault and the Art of Ethics, which might be more interesting to you (https://www.amazon.ca/Foucault-Art-Ethics-Timothy-OLeary/dp/0826456278)

​

Also, while not pertaining to foucault, I've thoroughly enjoyed the book *Ethics* by French philosopher Badiou. His philosophy heavily draws upon Plato and ancient greek ethics (and a strong dose of mathematical set theory and Marx) to construct a novel "ethic of truth." It may be of interest to you.

Thanks for the response. I'll give a sparce reading list, as I find it pretty extensive.

Zizek:

• The Puppet and the Dwarf
  
• The Fragile Absolute
  
• The Neighbor
  
• The Idea of Communism
  
• Paul's New Moment
  
• The Monstrosity of Christ
  
• Theology and the Political
  
  Zizek has plenty of essays and talks floating around as well, but these books are probably the best--the first and second are the most sustained, the third is a lengthy essay making use of theological resources. The fourth contains essays by Eagleton, Vattimo, and Badiou. The fifth is one where he dialogues with theologians about St. Paul. The sixth is a debate with a theologian about theology. The final is a great collection of people all across the board, mostly Marxists, dealing with theology.
  
  Vattimo:
  
  
• Hermeneutic Communism
  
• After Christianity
  
  Eagleton:
  
  
• Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate
  
• The Gospels: Jesus Christ (Revolution)
  
  Eagleton also specializes in short and helpful articles.
  
  Badiou:
  
  
• Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism
  
  Misc. Authors too extensive to list:
  
  
• Jean-Luc Nancy
  
• John Milbank
  
• Graham Ward
  
• Simon Critchley
  
  
  Secondary Literature:
  
  
• Christ and Postmodern Philosophy
  
• Any of the "so-and-so and theology" texts. I know Badiou and Vattimo both have one.
  
  Hopefully someone comes by and expands this list. I've gotta get back to work.

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

These are some of the better books I've accumulated in school:

• An Introduction to the New Testament - Raymond Brown. Exactly what the title says.
  
  
• The Early Church - Henry Chadwick. This is more of a historical overview of the development of the Church, etc.
  
  
• The Shape of Catholic Theology - Aiden Nichols. This book is kind of a dense read. Not gonna lie.
  
  
• At the Origin of the Christian Claim - Luigi Giussani.
  
  
• The Craft of Theology - Avery Dulles.
  
  
• The Theology of the Church - Charles Jornet. - This one is about ecclesiology, or the structure of the Church.
  
  
• Early Christian Fathers -Cyril Richardson. Includes primary sources like letters and homilies.
  
  
• The Trinitarian Crontroversy - William Rusch. Very good history of early heresies, like Arianism and Nestorianism, and how they pushed the Church to develop the Creed.
  
  
• Called to Communion - Joseph Ratzinger.
  
  
• Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man - Henri de Lubac. This book is fantastic!
  
  
• The Meaning of Tradition - Yves Congar.
  
  
• Introduction to Moral Theology - Romanus Cessario.
  
  
• The Major Works -Anselm of Canterbury. Nice collection, see especially: Cur Deus Homo.
  
  
• On the Incarnation - Ignatius of Antioch. I LOVED this one!
  
  
• Credo for Today - Joseph Ratzinger. Basically anything by Ratzinger.

In no particular order and without thinking they are all of equal importance:

1. Karl Barth. Whether you love him or hate him, you cannot avoid him and his influence on Protestant thought in the 20th century. I would be remiss if I did not recommend my good friend's book, Kenneth Oakes, Karl Barth on Theology and Philosophy.
   
   
2. G.W.F. Hegel. Again, whether you love him or hate him (and let's be honest, even if you did try to read him, only a fraction of people understand what he's saying), you cannot avoid his influence. To supplement Hegel, I'd recommend Cyril O'Regan's The Heterodox Hegel.
   
   
3. Rowan Williams. Prolific does not even begin to describe Williams' writing career. He is well-regarded by nearly everyone (Catholics and Protestants alike). He writes on such a vast range of topics (from St. Augustine to Arianism to Christian Spirituality to Dostoevsky) and does so well. That's a real gift.
   
   
4. Rudolf Bultmann. He is a crucial figure in 20th century New Testament studies. His commentary on the Gospel of John ought to be read by everyone interested in NT studies.
   
   
5. F.C. Baur. He was instrumental in shaping the field of Patristics and the study of the early Church for Protestants. Heavily reliant upon Hegelianism. He founded what is known as the Tübingen School.
   
   
6. Kevin Vanhoozer. I think he's a big name among Evangelicals and rightly so. Vanhoozer is very bright and his books engage with a wide range of sources and theories. I don't agree with him on much, but he is not someone one can simply disregard. There's real meat in his theology and I think if Evangelicals are looking for someone to help them with their intellectual struggles, Vanhoozer would be a good place to start.
   
   
7. Adolf von Harnack. Another critical figure in my own field. What impresses me most about von Harnack's work is its range. The guy could do it all, from NT studies to Church history. The sort of education he received is that of a bygone era and I'm not sure we'll ever produce people as well-rounded as von Harnack.
   
   
8. N.T. Wright. Wright is sometimes disregarded by New Testament scholars, but I think it's because he is so philosophically adept. He knows what's at stake, what's underpinning certain methodologies, etc. I know his NPP stuff is not always so well-received (he is basically just saying what Catholics have known since St. Paul), but it is not easy to dismiss him. I think the fact that he's trained in Thomism (although of the Lonerganian sort) makes him very interesting as an NT scholar. As a modification of his theories on exile in the New Testament, I highly recommend Brant Pitre's Jesus, The Tribulation, and the End of Exile.

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~

I read some of it, and enjoyed it, but I can't really get behind it theologically since he throws out all of the New Testament besides the Gospels. While that's fine, that is far from what I (and most people in Christianity) believe.

A better book for those that accept the entire New Testament is "The New Testament Basis for Peacemaking." I found it being thrown out of my school's library (the librarian is a hardcore political conservative and probably threw it out since she disagreed with it) and I saved it and found it a very excellent book. Highly recommended.

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.

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.

You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?

It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil



[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)

Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted

Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus

Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?

Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels

John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary

John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Karen Armstrong – A History of God

Mark Smith – The Early History of God

Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?

Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?

Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus

"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?

I don't see Mark Johnston's work talked about much round these parts, but I think his work is great.

He looks at religion and immortality from fresh angles, using rigorous philosophy, and produces wild conclusions:

Saving God (arguing that all religions are idolatrous)


Surviving Death (arguing that you can live on after death without divine intervention - really brilliant personal identity stuff in there)

These books are recent, erudite, and keep away from some of the more over-wrought debates. They're also some of the most fun I've had reading philosophy, which I think is really important.

I haven't seen any miraculous healing like those described in Scripture, where a servant of the Lord says a word and someone is healed. Has the power of the Holy Spirit been diluted so that we can't perform miracles like the apostles?

To call Reformed arguments for cessationism as flimsy, it shows quite an unwillingness to deal with the best and brightest on the subject. Flim-flam prophecy and hokey-healing in charismatic churches sold me part of the way, [Dick Gaffin's Perspectives on Pentecost] (http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Pentecost-Richard-Jr-Gaffin/dp/0875522696) did the rest of the work. I really encourage people to read it.

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.

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
  
  

> 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).

This is a well-worded question.

The first thing to say is that positivist/scientific/empiricist methods could be rejected as exclusive epistemological methods, independently from other methods, religious or not. This for a variety of reasons including the problem of induction, critiques of positivism including Quine's, the fact that empiricism is theory laden, the social embeddedness of scientific practices as explained by Michael Polanyi in books such as Science, Faith, and Society, basic problems of the most common form of Naturalism I see on reddit, and any number of other critiques.

And there is the notion of Truth itself. What do you mean by this word? It's a problematic concept, so there are different theories of truth that a person might accept or reject for one's self.

When the skeptic throws epistemic challenges to the theist, ought that skeptic have rigorous solutions to offer that can't reasonably be rejected for reasons above? I'd say most skeptics do not believe they have any need to account for their views (should they have ever taken inventory of their views at all). The hand-waiving usually takes the form of "Where's your evidence, Christian?" or "You're the one making the positive claim, so you prove your position!" You can see why I find these attacks to be empty in the context of debate, and wholly dismissible, whether or not I have any legitimate reason to believe what I do. It's not about dismissing the question as much as expecting more from the skeptic than firing blanks.

So before I sketch out what I hold to, I'd like a response or two from skeptics about my question. Ought that skeptic have solid answers to deep-level epistemic questions and theories of truth before attacking theistic views? I think so. That seems fair to me. It's not so much an issue of "burden of proof" or winning debate points; I see it as a matter of intellectual integrity and honest self-reflection. To be honest, I see very little of this on reddit.

Thoughts?

I am fascinated with both topics as well.

Recommendations on anthropology of religion:

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

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

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

edit: or Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin

I would also recommend Michael Martin as well.

Impossibility of God

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

and darling Bryan, this would be the text that shaped my thinking:

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-God-Religion-after-Idolatry/dp/0691152616

If you're going to read Barth scholarship alongside actually reading Barth, make sure you check out Ken Oakes' book, Karl Barth on Theology and Philosophy.

While I am sure lots of such claims you've been given are rather vulgar, the premise is actually quite familiar and well argued in Michael Polanyi's Science, Faith, and Soceity(1946). He was a physical chemist and philosopher of science at Oxford. I would also recommend his book Personal Knowledge. After reading, you might come to believe that the "New Atheist" view of science is hopelessly naive.

Why God does not exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Non-Existence-God-Nicholas-Everitt/dp/0415301076

http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/

http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591021200/

http://www.amazon.com/Improbability-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591023815/

http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com/

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.

>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.

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.

>God isn't the greatest conceivable being

That's the classic definition. I suppose you can dispute it. But you can do that with anything: "Unicorns don't have any horns."

>Things don't exist in possible worlds, unless said possible worlds exist.

It's a concept from modal logic. If you have to dispute modal logic to get out of the argument, then I suppose that's a complement to the argument.

>Omnipotence and free-will are necessarily mutually exclusive.

If this carries weight in atheism, I haven't seen much support for it. The best current books in atheism don't seem to list it. The main atheistic argument these days is Rowe's evidential problem of evil, which is not a logical absurdity argument.

Alright, let me try to simplify this all. You ready?

The point of everything I've been trying to say is to demonstrate to you that the Epicurean argument is illogical, and completely disregarded in modern times by philosophers. The reason I'm struggling here is because I'm having trouble cutting through your presuppositions, bias, (and the occasional barb). I'm wondering at this point if you have had any formal training in logic or philosophy? If you don't, I encourage you to take a cursory course on the subject. That's not to insult you; that really is to encourage you in this direction.

Please open your mind to what I'm about to say, if for no other reason than we've had 2000+ years to debunk Epicurus, and not just from a theistic standpoint. Keep in mind that the modern philosophical consensus is to completely disregard the Epicurean argument.

I'll try very hard to be succinct.

Epicurus has 3 main assumptions in his argument.

1 - God is all powerful and all knowing.

2 - God is all good.

3 - Evil exists.

It should be noted here that only the popularizers of Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens... and random internet forums with their Epicurus demotivator) are the ones willing to use the Epicurean argument; not the atheistic philosophers however.

Michael Martin, atheistic philosopher, says that the [Epicurean argument] has "generally been regarded as unsuccessful."

Michael Tooley says, "It seems very doubtful the argument is sound."

Nicholas Everitt says, "It does not form an explicitly contradictory set."

Paul Draper says, "Although logical arguments from evil seemed promising to a number of philosophers in the 1950' and 1960's, they are rejected by the vast majority of contemporary philosophers of religion."

Draper goes on to say elsewhere, "In order for a logical argument from evil to succeed, it is necessary to show that, for some known fact about evil, it is logically impossible for God to have a good moral reason to permit that fact to obtain. This, however, is precisely what most philosophers nowadays believe cannot be shown."

Martin adds,

"A. God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

A. God could prevent evil unless evil was logically necessary.

B. God is all-good.

B. God would prevent evil unless God had a morally significant reason to allow it.

C. Evil exists.

C. Evil exists only if either God has a morally sufficient reason to allow it or it is logically necessary."

Martin then concludes that, "3 does not conflict with 1 and 2."

Furthermore, "Because of the failure of deductive arguments from evil, atheologians have developed inductive or probabilistic arguments from evil for the nonexistence of God."

Everitt divides Epicurus into 4 propositions.

1. The world contains evil because the presence of evil is so obvious.
   
2. God is omnipotent.
   
3. God is omniscient.
   
4. God is morally perfect.
   
   He then says, "Premises 1-4 do not form an explicitly contradictory set; and it would be difficult to find any atheist who thought that they did."
   
   [I will add here that this is precisely where we're getting stuck. In 2000+ years of this set not working, you are one of the rare ones that insists the set is fine (remember, I haven't cited a single theist yet here). Are you trained in philosophy and logic so that you can back up such a dispute against minds like those I've cited here today? That's not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to expertise. Would you still hold to your contentions after seeing the illogic of the Epicurean statement so plainly on display here today?]
   
   As such, the philosophical consensus is to disregard Epicurus (which is why I was surprised you brought him up in the first place). It is not unfair to say that the majority of philosophers in the world consider the Epicurean argument a joke.
   
   Now... I know you (severely) underestimated my intelligence this entire time (even going so far as to insult me once or twice), but I hope you now realize, I was holding back as I tried bring down these topics to a personal level so as to not overwhelm you with pure information and scholarly research. These are leading atheistic philosophers here; I haven't used a single theistic source in my argument today, and they're all saying the Epicurean argument from evil is bunk. You don't have to believe me; but you should at least believe them, if atheism truly is the worldview you choose to accept, and not just another Pharisaical exercise in superiority.
   
   I'll close with a quote from C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, who gets to the heart of what I've been trying to show you with my past posts (C.S. Lewis was an atheist for years after he fought in the first world war, you'll remember):
   
   >"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies."
   
   I'm interested to see how you'll respond to all this.
   
   EDIT: Fixed typos, numbering.