reading recommendations for this atheist?

pirateninja · #1 6th November 2009, 01:20 AM

I wonder if this question might be better posed in the apologetics forum, but I see that is for Christians only

I am an atheist looking for some reading recommendations. I like being intellectually challenged, and I’ve been reading various books and sources that are cited as antidotes to the ‘new atheism’. I believe that it is important to have one’s views tested from time to time, and I don’t want to slip into a lazy intellectual comfortability. Nothing I have read so far, however, actually addresses atheist arguments and puts forward a counter view. The responses I have come across so far all either make ad-hominem attacks against atheist writers, complain that atheists are being beastly, dismiss atheists as not being up with theology, or simply restate old arguments. None of this actually constitutes any sort of response to current atheist writing.

Can anyone point me at any resources (preferably books – I’m an old guy, I like to read, not listen to mp3s) that actually address current atheist writing? For example (I’ll refer to Dawkins in particular as he is the bete noir of contemporary counter-atheism writers, it seems)

instead of saying that Dawkins is not qualified in theology, actually explain some of the theological arguments and why Dawkins is wrong.
instead of just restating the ideas that complex organisms cannot come to be by chance, there are no intermediate stages to eyes, etc etc, actually unpack Dawkin’s arguments and show why he is wrong in his criticism of these arguments.

I’ll be even pickier

: what I’m really interested in are responses to the scientific and metaphysical questions of the existence of god or gods. While Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc, comment on the evils committed by religion which provokes in turn comments about the good done by religion, social utility is no argument for or against the existence of god or gods (whether god or gods are good is another matter but that is, well, another matter).

kidsagainstkows · #2 6th November 2009, 01:59 AM

well as an atheist i cant really many good apologetic but i can say that my favorite ones are Josh Mcdowel, Lee Strobel, and Ray Comfort.

for reading about the bible i recommend you read Bart Erhman (hes agnostic). i had the opportunity to hear him speak and read a textbook by him (i have since read 'Jesus Interrupted' as well and its very good).

i also recommend the profMTH account on youtube for other things reguarding religion. he is also an atheist but he doesnt mock like Dawkins, Hitchens, or to a lesser degree Harris.

ebia · #3 6th November 2009, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by pirateninja

I wonder if this question might be better posed in the apologetics forum, but I see that is for Christians only

I am an atheist looking for some reading recommendations. I like being intellectually challenged, and I’ve been reading various books and sources that are cited as antidotes to the ‘new atheism’. I believe that it is important to have one’s views tested from time to time, and I don’t want to slip into a lazy intellectual comfortability. Nothing I have read so far, however, actually addresses atheist arguments and puts forward a counter view. The responses I have come across so far all either make ad-hominem attacks against atheist writers, complain that atheists are being beastly, dismiss atheists as not being up with theology, or simply restate old arguments. None of this actually constitutes any sort of response to current atheist writing.

Can anyone point me at any resources (preferably books – I’m an old guy, I like to read, not listen to mp3s) that actually address current atheist writing? For example (I’ll refer to Dawkins in particular as he is the bete noir of contemporary counter-atheism writers, it seems)

instead of saying that Dawkins is not qualified in theology, actually explain some of the theological arguments and why Dawkins is wrong.

instead of just restating the ideas that complex organisms cannot come to be by chance, there are no intermediate stages to eyes, etc etc, actually unpack Dawkin’s arguments and show why he is wrong in his criticism of these arguments.

I’ll be even pickier: what I’m really interested in are responses to the scientific and metaphysical questions of the existence of god or gods. While Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc, comment on the evils committed by religion which provokes in turn comments about the good done by religion, social utility is no argument for or against the existence of god or gods (whether god or gods are good is another matter but that is, well, another matter).

On the whole, good theologians don't write books of apologetics, and where there are exceptions they aren't usually engaging in debate with a particular militant atheist.

You would do better to read some good theology and then make up your own mind about whether that's the kind of theology being addressed by Dawkins et al. Something by John Polkinhorne (himself a physicist turned theologian) or N.T. Wright might suit.

Most of the popular apologetics is, IMO, utter drivel - John Dickson is a notable Australian exception.

Bible2 · #4 6th November 2009, 03:42 AM

reading recommendations for this atheist?

There is only one book that will convince atheists of the truth of Christianity, and that is God's own book the Holy Bible: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15).

Supreme · #5 6th November 2009, 05:18 AM

Th God Delusion's actually funny, if you know who Dawkins is. It's comedic value is mostly derived from the desperation of the author to convince himself, sorry, the reader at the impossibility of God. Does anyone remember when Dawkins used to keep to the subject he's good at, namely evolutionary biology? Because for someone studying bioplogy such as myself, those books are far more useful than the bunch of quickly thought out, centuries old arguments regarding things Dawkins doesn't understand quickly compiled in a book.

PS- I like the Dawkins Delusion, that pretty much destroys every argument Dawkins tries to make. Oh, and it's written by a respectable scientist, Alistair McGrath, who, on the complete contrary to Dawkins, started out an atheist, studied science and became a Christian.

heymikey80 · #6 6th November 2009, 08:31 AM

From a philosophical point of view?

Spinoza, "Ethics".
Yancey, "Rumors of Another World".
MacIntyre, "After Virtue". Though I'm not impressed with his solution, he lays out the problem very, very well.
Ecclesiastes.

Dawkins is attacking by rhetoric. That's why his position is so problematic, and why the response to him is uniformly exposing his rhetoric. Were he to explain the reasoned problem of the concept of God, then we'd have something to talk about. But anyone can trash anything (Derrida). Heck, people have trashed water.

pirateninja · #7 8th November 2009, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by ebia

On the whole, good theologians don't write books of apologetics, and where there are exceptions they aren't usually engaging in debate with a particular militant atheist.

I had kinda suspected that. I hadn't actually expected to be reading theology. My point was this. Athiests who discuss the evidence for and against god from a scientific perspective usually explain why they think the evidence leads to the views they hold. These explanations may or may not be correct. I happen to think they are. Religious writers in response generally say "oh X doesn't know his theology" or "well, X is only a biologist and isn't really qualified to talk about science". Which are statements which one hopes have some possible basis in argument. But the argument's not there, just the assertion. I was hoping that someone might have picked up the argument in their responses. But anyway ...

You would do better to read some good theology and then make up your own mind about whether that's the kind of theology being addressed by Dawkins et al. Something by John Polkinhorne (himself a physicist turned theologian) or N.T. Wright might suit.

Most of the popular apologetics is, IMO, utter drivel - John Dickson is a notable Australian exception.

Polkinhorne. Wright. Dickson. Thanks. I'll be back.

ebia · #8 8th November 2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by pirateninja

I had kinda suspected that. I hadn't actually expected to be reading theology. My point was this. Athiests who discuss the evidence for and against god from a scientific perspective usually explain why they think the evidence leads to the views they hold. These explanations may or may not be correct. I happen to think they are. Religious writers in response generally say "oh X doesn't know his theology" or "well, X is only a biologist and isn't really qualified to talk about science". Which are statements which one hopes have some possible basis in argument. But the argument's not there, just the assertion. I was hoping that someone might have picked up the argument in their responses.

So you're looking for an explaination of why Dawkin's (say) theology is wrong?

pirateninja · #9 8th November 2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by heymikey80

From a philosophical point of view?

Spinoza, "Ethics".
Yancey, "Rumors of Another World".
MacIntyre, "After Virtue". Though I'm not impressed with his solution, he lays out the problem very, very well.
Ecclesiastes.

OK, will have a go (I managed to avoid spinoza when I went to philosophy school a couple of decades ago; he may have caught up to me).

Dawkins is attacking by rhetoric. That's why his position is so problematic, and why the response to him is uniformly exposing his rhetoric. Were he to explain the reasoned problem of the concept of God, then we'd have something to talk about. But anyone can trash anything (Derrida). Heck, people have trashed water.

I didn't come here to debate - I think that would be discourteous to the forum. But I can't let this go.

Yes he is somewhat exercised about religion. Yes one can point to many good things that religion does in the world. But to claim that Dawkins has no basis to be exercised is to show a profound lack of self-awareness on the part of religion as an institution.

More to the point, though, Dawkin's core arguments are about science. He is eminently qualified to talk on this point. He (and others) convince me. I am also, by the way, quite qualified to talk about the issue and know whereof I speak. Dawkin's arguments on this score are not rhetoric. Here are some arguments that are rhetoric:

"Dawkins doesn't know any theology"
"Dawkins is only a biologist"
"Dawkins isn't a real professor"

They are rhetorical because they rely on ad-hominem dismissals of Dawkins without any attempt whatsoever actually to respond to his arguments. Which is what I am looking for. Christians (N.B. I am deliberately switching from "religious" to "Christians" at this point based on my reading so far) keep telling me that Dawkins et al have it wrong in the detail; as someone who thinks that honest reason is important, want to know why; but no one will tell me!

pirateninja · #10 8th November 2009, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by ebia

So you're looking for an explaination of why Dawkin's (say) theology is wrong?

Well, not just Dawkins ... but pretty much.

See my response to heymikey80 which more or less sets out my issues.

The Dawkins Delusion, for example, is an excellent example of the sort of thing I am talking about - I'm not sure McGrath has actually read Dawkins. He may have felt the weight of the book and skipped across a few choice paras that upset him, but he didn't actually seem to read it. All the more disappointing given that on his credentials McGrath ought be able to directly attack Dawkins on the science. Flew: well, Flew gets pointed at a lot, but, leaving aside that he isn't particularly responding to the New Atheism, all he does is restate in an unsophisticated fashion the argument for incredulity.

Given you are also in Oz, I'll also mention Tom Frame's Losing my religion. The first part, which is a commentary on disinterest in religion in Australia, is actually a good and interesting read. But then ... for example he seeks to refute the New Atheists, especially Dawkins, basically by quoting a string of talking heads who say, in various ways, that Dawkins has no theology. And he (Frame) refers to the new Atheists as "smug". Irony?

P.S. @ Supreme: sorry, being new here, I'm not familiar with the norms and memes. Was that a troll?

P.P.S. @ Bible2: actually I'm an ex-believer and know the bible pretty well. Sorry to disappoint.