What Have You Read?

[secondtimearound]

Whenever I hear atheists claim to lack belief in God, it is generally followed by the claim "I am not convinced by the arguments for God's existence". What I would like to know is: what literature have you read on the arguments for God's existence and do you have any training in philosophy?

 

[Ken-1122]

Whenever I hear atheists claim to lack belief in God, it is generally followed by the claim "I am not convinced by the arguments for God's existence". What I would like to know is: what literature have you read on the arguments for God's existence

I've read very little literature, most of the arguments I've heard came from people I've actually talked to.

and do you have any training in philosophy?

I have no training in philosphy.

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I would like to know is: what literature have you read on the arguments for God's existence and do you have any training in philosophy?

I'm not a professional philosopher, but I took a liberal arts concentration in philosophy (maybe 4 or 5 university classes) in my undergraduate days, which included "Philosophy of Religion". I studied Thomas Aquinas, Martin Buber, C.S. Lewis, and various other writers, reading their words. I had read some Scientific Creationist literature as well, though this was so long ago I don't remember the authors.

However, I had encountered even more Apologetics online, though usually not of quite as high a degree of philosophical quality. But I've heard and considered many different approaches to justifying the view that God exists, and none have been convincing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[secondtimearound]

I'm not a professional philosopher, but I took a liberal arts concentration in philosophy (maybe 4 or 5 university classes) in my undergraduate days, which included "Philosophy of Religion". I studied Thomas Aquinas, Martin Buber, C.S. Lewis, and various other writers, reading their words. I had read some Scientific Creationist literature as well, though this was so long ago I don't remember the authors.

However, I had encountered even more Apologetics online, though usually not of quite as high a degree of philosophical quality. But I've heard and considered many different approaches to justifying the view that God exists, and none have been convincing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It is nice to see my assumption of you having some phiolosophical training was right. As much as I disagree with your position, I do expect a well thought out answer when you post. I do look forward to future debates with you as I become more learned in the area of philosophy of religion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Whenever I hear atheists claim to lack belief in God, it is generally followed by the claim "I am not convinced by the arguments for God's existence". What I would like to know is: what literature have you read on the arguments for God's existence and do you have any training in philosophy?

Just from memory, The Bible, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Mere Christianity, some of the church fathers - Aquinas, Origen, Calvin, Luther, and so on.

What have you read that's critical of your religious views?

 

[AlexBP]

What have you read that's critical of your religious views?

Among prominent atheist authors, I have read books by Friedrich Nietzsche*, Sigmund Freud, Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, and Richard Dawkins. I've read essays or parts of books by Marx and Engels, Schopenhauer, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, and probably others that I can't remember right at this moment.


*Strictly speaking I should say that I read part of a book by Nietzsche. I read about three quarters of Thus Spake Zarathustra before giving up due to boredom.

 

[Paradoxum]

3 or 4 of Aquinas' 5 ways.
Descartes
Kant
Anselm
W.L. Craig (Kalam Cosmological Argument)
C.S.Lewis
Michael Behe
Various other philosophers and apologetics that I can't think of right now.

I study philosophy.

 

[secondtimearound]

Just from memory, The Bible, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Mere Christianity, some of the church fathers - Aquinas, Origen, Calvin, Luther, and so on.

What have you read that's critical of your religious views?

Neitchze - Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil and am about to dig into A Geneology Of Morals
Russell - Basic Writings, Why I Am Not a Christian
Flew - God and Philosophy and this might not be critical but I will say it anyway, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Hume - Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
A.J. Ayer - Language, Truth and Logic
Graham Oppy - Arguing about Gods, Ontological Arguments and Belief in God
A.C, Grayling - Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness
Erhman - Misquoting Jesus

I tried some of the new atheists writings such as Dawkins and Hitchens but found them just to be frustrating. They may be smart people, however when it comes to philosophy they are layman. I read The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow, that was also an incredibly frustrating book with their notion of Meta Ontology and claiming it was time for the scientists to take over only to spend a third of their book philosophizing. Also, not to forget I have read dozens of essays I have in various books on the philosophy of religion. I like to read.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I read the Bible extensively, tried as I could, with help from the Church, never managed to make sense of it.


I tried to reconcile forgiveness with the genocide in Joshua and Judges, tried to work out exactly what obedience to God really meant.

I could see no way to justify which books were included in our Bible and which were left out on the basis of the scriptures themselves or any other rigorous method.

I was unable to see how Noah's Flood could be either global or local, or when it could have been.

And if things in the Bible were taken a metaphors how to work out which were metaphors and which weren't.


In the end I considered the many capable people who had failed to produce a biblical theology and realised I certainly wasn't going to manage either.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Speaking of books, why can't God write a book that people can understand?

 

[secondtimearound]

Speaking of books, why can't God write a book that people can understand?

I didn't realize God wrote it.

 

[Gadarene]

Aquinas, Lewis, Plantinga.

And because I refuse to put them in the same sentence, Craig and Strobel.

And open to reading more, of course.

 

[Gadarene]

Speaking of books, why can't God write a book that people can understand?

Yes, not the best means of communication at all.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Whenever I hear atheists claim to lack belief in God, it is generally followed by the claim "I am not convinced by the arguments for God's existence". What I would like to know is: what literature have you read on the arguments for God's existence and do you have any training in philosophy?

Far less than I've been meaning to; I've only really read some Aquinas and Plantinga so far. Mostly my knowledge is limited to the arguments themselves, rather than the (often unnecessary) philosophical embellishment that accompanies them. At the same time, what I have attempted to read (mostly online articles and extracts from books) has not been any more informative than the arguments.

As for training, I have none, but then I don't see why any is necessary. Training would be necessary to have a broader knowledge of philosophical approaches and worldviews, but not to point out logical errors in a simple argument. For example, my main problem with most apologetic arguments is that they are not actually arguments for God, which does not require professional training to work out. They are usually akin to saying that two plus two equals a number, which is completely correct until they insist that the number is five.

 

[secondtimearound]

As for training, I have none, but then I don't see why any is necessary. Training would be necessary to have a broader knowledge of philosophical approaches and worldviews, but not to point out logical errors in a simple argument.

Hmm. Think Pros Vs. Joes, armchair athletes, it's all the same thing. The man who says he does not need philosophy is the most apt to be deceived by it.

Just look at Hawking and Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design. They say that "philosophy is dead" and that "philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge". Please. So after pronouncing philosophy dead, they then spend the next third of their book engaging in a philosophical discussion! They end up getting into Ontological pluralism (a radical view, defended by only a few philosophers) and are ignorant to the refutations of this view.

So here is couple of guys who by our standards are geniuses and yet they cannot see the error of their ways. If they can't, then what chance does the layman have? Think about it.

 

[secondtimearound]

And because I refuse to put them in the same sentence, Craig and Strobel.

You put William Lane Craig (professional philosopher) in the same bracket as Lee Strobel (Professional journalist). Insults like that show just how good of a job Dr. Craig is doing defending our faith.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hmm. Think Pros Vs. Joes, armchair athletes, it's all the same thing. The man who says he does not need philosophy is the most apt to be deceived by it.

Just look at Hawking and Mlodinow in their book The Grand Design. They say that "philosophy is dead" and that "philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge". Please. So after pronouncing philosophy dead, they then spend the next third of their book engaging in a philosophical discussion! They end up getting into Ontological pluralism (a radical view, defended by only a few philosophers) and are ignorant to the refutations of this view.

So here is couple of guys who by our standards are geniuses and yet they cannot see the error of their ways. If they can't, then what chance does the layman have? Think about it.

I don’t think he is saying philosophy is useless or dead, I think he is just saying (and I agree) that you don’t need a philosophy degree to see the flaws in the bible.

Ken

 

[secondtimearound]

I'll be honest, I'm not interested in a debate on The Grand Design, I'm just using it as an example to illustrate my point.

Do you think I don't have problems with parts of the Bible? Of course I do, but I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. My belief in Christ comes from experiencing Him, something that I just can't ignore. After that, belief that the Bible is God's word came easy.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'll be honest, I'm not interested in a debate on The Grand Design, I'm just using it as an example to illustrate my point.

Do you think I don't have problems with parts of the Bible? Of course I do, but I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. My belief in Christ comes from experiencing Him, something that I just can't ignore. After that, belief that the Bible is God's word came easy.

I'm not trying to start any debate or throw any babies out with the bathwater, I was just pointing out your mistake that he was saying philosophy isn't necessary. I was just trying to clear that up that's all[/font]


Ken

 

[Gadarene]

You put William Lane Craig (professional philosopher) in the same bracket as Lee Strobel (Professional journalist).

Only in that neither are in the same league as the names I mentioned prior to that. Craig is far ahead of Strobel, to be sure, but he's still not that spectacular.

Insults like that show just how good of a job Dr. Craig is doing defending our faith.

You may want to reread logic 101 before anything else, if that's your metric for someone doing a good job.