philosophical book about God/religion for guy suffering existential angst and fear about afterlife possibility

[Wise Fool]

Angsty is not a word

Neither is "hahahahahahaha!" But I totally did that anyway too.

"If Dawkins, and by extension his more angsty and petulant followers (i.e. SomeDeadMan) was just advocating science..."

I don't know if this was intended for me, or if you were simply dismissively referring to me in the third person, but I stopped reading here. Angsty is not a word, so I can only guess what you meant by that, but I do know what petulant means, and I tend to prefer not to engage with people whose first tryst with me is an ad hominem attack. I just don't think it really gets us anywhere, but carry on. I won't be interrupting.

An ad hominem would be if I were to say you were wrong because you are angsty and petulant, but that was not my argument. I understand if you would prefer to sulk petulantly instead of say anything more substantial, though.

[SomeDeadMan]

Neither is "hahahahahahaha!" But I totally did that anyway too.

An ad hominem would be if I were to say you were wrong because you are angsty and petulant, but that was not my argument. I understand if you would prefer to sulk petulantly instead of say anything more substantial, though.

Haha... Is simply an understood onomatopoeia- an informal word. Angsty is a word you've made up and, humorously, petulantly tried to set aside in yet another dismissal. Your second post in which I've interacted with you and the second time you've attacked my character within the first line of the post.

By the way, your ad hominem was in calling me a follower, with two negative adjectives (assuming angsty is negative - is it? Maybe you gave it a definition later in your rant) is a fairly loaded accusation. You're ascribing me motive - a childish follower, blinded by his 'idol'. I just don't have time for petty Internet wars in which someone genuinely attempts to equate 'haha' with their made up words.

Finally, it's not that I'm going to 'petulantly sit and sulk', as you can see I've interacted with others, and much more substantively than you, it's just you I won't be interacting with. Because you seem to me like a troll; a petulant, bratty troll, no less. And in order to avoid this sort of flame war type idiocy, I'm going to block you, assuming I can find a block button. I'd hate to be lured under the bridge again.

[polishgenius]

Just so you know, 'angsty' is not a word he's just made up.

ETA:

Anyway, I was thinking, per TC's request: while I'm not much help for serious philosophical studies of this sort of thing, I reckon you might find Nation, the book by Terry Pratchett, interesting, as it covers exactly these sorts of questions of belief and rationality and that.

Similarly, Gene Wolfe's Solar Cycle (or at least the New Sun and Long Sun, haven't got as far as Short Sun yet) are designed to get you thinking about these sorts of things, particularly Long Sun. Those are from a Catholic perspective, but they're (while also being brilliant fiction) the ruminations of a Catholic convert on his new religion, and not the sort of preaching that, say, the Chronicles of Narnia are guilty of (also, much, much, much, much, much more dense than Narnia...).

[Sci-2]

Just so you know, 'angsty' is not a word he's just made up.

ETA:

Anyway, I was thinking, per TC's request: while I'm not much help for serious philosophical studies of this sort of thing, I reckon you might find Nation, the book by Terry Pratchett, interesting, as it covers exactly these sorts of questions of belief and rationality and that.

Similarly, Gene Wolfe's Solar Cycle (or at least the New Sun and Long Sun, haven't got as far as Short Sun yet) are designed to get you thinking about these sorts of things, particularly Long Sun. Those are from a Catholic perspective, but they're (while also being brilliant fiction) the ruminations of a Catholic convert on his new religion, and not the sort of preaching that, say, the Chronicles of Narnia are guilty of (also, much, much, much, much, much more dense than Narnia...).

Good looking out, bringing up Prachett.

I'd recommend Good Omens, which he co-wrote with Gaiman, as well as Prachett's Small Gods.

I'd also recommend the works of Camus and Sartre - the Existentialists produced gorgeous prose. From Camus I'd recommend The First Man and The Stranger, from Sartre I'd suggest Nausea.

There's also CS Lewis's account of going from atheist to believer, IIRC in Ode to Joy, but I found it rather weak as a progression of logical reasoning.

I know Feser wrote a book called The Last Superstition, his response to the New Atheism, but I suspect that it'll be just as silly and polemical as God Delusion. Even he admits the book has a good deal of invective.

He also wrote the book Aquinas, which I believe covers the same ground but in less polemical fashion. I plan to read that one at some point.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

as a man who values reason , humanism ,and tolerance above everything. I began to feel angered because of some religious people's complete disregard for logic and scientific theories such as Darwin's theory of evolution as well as the big bang theory. I also really dislike each religious group's claim of monopoly over the truth and their treatment of other groups as heathens over the course of history .

So dude you're dislike each group monopoly over truth, and you are angry they don't accept truth you believe in (acceptance of modern philosophy of science) because apparently it should have its monopoly, right?

I was also shocked how some of my peers and colleagues in school and university follow their creeds blindly and find any criticism of religion either absurd and funny in spite of the fact that they seem extremely intelligent people .

Considering how the most usual and normal things about human beings seems to utterly shock you.

Do religions have problems with the theory of evolution? Yes (each religion has different difficulties - the protestants probably have the biggest and that is why the debate there is stronger) but in time they will all adapt.

Or not. Because frankly acceptance of Theory of Evolution is not really necessary to continuation of technical and economical development.

I would only say, as a counter to the former poster, that evolution has evidence, God does not. There is no equivalence.

Only in a frames of certain philosophies.

There are proofs both for and against God's existence.

Nope there are not such things. And cannot be. Even if hosts of angels would nuke armies of Antichrist nearby town of Megido with live relation on You Tube. Sorry.

Dawkins only gets into theological arguments to point out blatant fallacies: Virgin birth, walking on water, raising from the dead, revelations, etc.

But why should be those things fallacies. When you believe in Omnipotent Creator then everythings possible. Basically all those things are possible with really advanced alien race pretending to be God. Low-level miracles, really

[dornishscorpion]

So dude you're dislike each group monopoly over truth, and you are angry they don't accept truth you believe in (acceptance of modern philosophy of science) because apparently it should have its monopoly, right?

Considering how the most usual and normal things about human beings seems to utterly shock you.

Or not. Because frankly acceptance of Theory of Evolution is not really necessary to continuation of technical and economical development.

Only in a frames of certain philosophies.

Nope there are not such things. And cannot be. Even if hosts of angels would nuke armies of Antichrist nearby town of Megido with live relation on You Tube. Sorry.

But why should be those things fallacies. When you believe in Omnipotent Creator then everythings possible. Basically all those things are possible with really advanced alien race pretending to be God. Low-level miracles, really

i'm not angry because they don't believe what i believe (i don't see how you came up with this conclusion) i'm angry because of their lack of openness to other ideas that contradict what they have been fed since their early days

[SomeDeadMan]

"Just so you know, 'angsty' is not a word he's just made up."

No course not, hyperbole to make the point. 'Angsty' is still not a real word, an informal word, a colloquial word, a word of dialect, or any other sort of word. It's just a common mistake. I don't want to argue over word errors, though.

Wicked,

My only response to that would be the good old "People are indeed entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts". It doesn't matter if, in their belief of an omnipotent creator, then can find some internal logic to make believe in miracles. They're still as real as Peter Pan and Dany's dragons when it comes to all we know of the world.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

It doesn't matter if, in their belief of an omnipotent creator, then can find some internal logic to make believe in miracles. They're still as real as Peter Pan and Dany's dragons when it comes to all we know of the world.

See problem is, as an agnostic (true agnostic not those mild-minded-non-offensive atheists) I don't believe in objective facts. Belief goes always first, and even assumption that material world we live in is real is belief not proven fact.

So what "you" whoever you are know about world, well that can be something totally different than I know. Sorry.

[SomeDeadMan]

See problem is, as an agnostic (true agnostic not those mild-minded-non-offensive atheists) I don't believe in objective facts. Belief goes always first, and even assumption that material world we live in is real is belief not proven fact.

So what "you" whoever you are know about world, well that can be something totally different than I know. Sorry.

You're a subjectivist, and that's fine - how you stop yourself from falling right over into nihilism, I don't know, but yes. That's okay. However, don't you then have to concede you don't actually believe in science, history, anything?

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

how you stop yourself from falling right over into nihilism, I don't know, but yes

Well I believe in God, that's probably the answer.

But then I always have this question about gnostic atheists, after all their whole existence is from philosophical point of view meaningless, free will is an illusion, sel-conciousness also. How to live like that? Well answer is quite easy - true nihilism is something virtually impossible without serious mental disease (assuming reality of material world of course).

However, don't you then have to concede you don't actually believe in science, history, anything?

I believe in many things. I'm agnostic. I deny knowledge (or maybe rather possiblity of certain knowledge) not belief. I'm all OK with beliefs. Pantheism, theism, atheism, spiritual juju, I'm OK with it (even if I believe in something different). I'm not OK with gnosis in all its forms.

[Larry of the Lawn]

You're a subjectivist, and that's fine - how you stop yourself from falling right over into nihilism, I don't know, but yes. That's okay. However, don't you then have to concede you don't actually believe in science, history, anything?

These men are cowards, Donny.

[Ranger275]

These men are cowards, Donny.

Somebody get this man a medal right fucking now!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

That rug really pulled the room together...

[sologdin]

a subjectivist, and that's fine

less subjectivist or nihilist, and more a rhetorical realist. the position allows belief in science, history, &c as rhetorical positions that may in fact correspond closely with other rhetorical positions arising out of an alleged objective material reality, often shorthanded as 'evidence.' one can be very committed to those respective superimposed and underlying rhetorical positions (i.e., non-nihilist) and recognize plainly that one's belief in any of them is not dependent upon any individual will or subjectivity (i.e., non-subjective).

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Why I Am Not A Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects - Bertrand Russell

It's been a while so I can't remember what all the particular essays are about. Obviously the first one is about Christianity. As I recall the rest go into God/religion more generally, and he also explores his godless ethical stance ("The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge"), and talks about death. I also remember it being very funny.

[Galactus]

Good looking out, bringing up Prachett.

I'd recommend Good Omens, which he co-wrote with Gaiman, as well as Prachett's Small Gods.

I'd also recommend the works of Camus and Sartre - the Existentialists produced gorgeous prose. From Camus I'd recommend The First Man and The Stranger, from Sartre I'd suggest Nausea.

There's also CS Lewis's account of going from atheist to believer, IIRC in Ode to Joy, but I found it rather weak as a progression of logical reasoning.

I know Feser wrote a book called The Last Superstition, his response to the New Atheism, but I suspect that it'll be just as silly and polemical as God Delusion. Even he admits the book has a good deal of invective.

He also wrote the book Aquinas, which I believe covers the same ground but in less polemical fashion. I plan to read that one at some point.

For a more christian existentialism there is Kierkegaard (who is deeply religious but in a very different way than is conventional) even Nietzsche might be useful.

as a man who values reason , humanism ,and tolerance above everything. I began to feel angered because of some religious people's complete disregard for logic and scientific theories such as Darwin's theory of evolution as well as the big bang theory. I also really dislike each religious group's claim of monopoly over the truth and their treatment of other groups as heathens over the course of history .To speak a little about myself i was born and raised in a shia muslim environment in a country where religious affiliation determined your course of life this country is lebanon. Also your religious affiliation is basically your identity. Now as i grew up and began to notice how absurd and contradicting are some of the statements and the rules asserted by both muslims and Christians and i have been exposed excessively to both cultures since i studied at a catholic school and go to a jesuit university . I was also shocked how some of my peers and colleagues in school and university follow their creeds blindly and find any criticism of religion either absurd and funny in spite of the fact that they seem extremely intelligent people .For example when i was mentioning how absurd the story of adam and eve is and how numerous evidences support the theory of evolution i was laughed at like i was some sort of fool and the response was that i a m free to believe that my ancestors were apes but that does not make it true ( which shows how ignorant some people still are and how much this theory is shrouded with a cloud of half truths and that people's idea about it is consisted of stereotypes and false notions). Now as much as i can criticize religion i have to admit that religious people are blessed to have a peace of mind which now i have lost after losing my faith ,a peace of mind that have disappeared upon being faced with two possibilities: either God is unreal which implies that this entire life is meaningless and there is nothing after death than oblivion, or God exists and i have not found him yet which implies that i'm either living a lie currently or as religion points out i'm going to hell for it, and assuming god exists in itself does not answer a lot of questions such as the immortality of the soul or in fact if he actually cares about us trying to reach out for him, we could be bacteria for him for all we know .So can anyone here ,(and i noticed on past discussions how knowledgeable and intelligent some members seem to be when discussing topics such as the existence of time and about atheism and morals),recommend some reading material that can increase a little bit my knowledge/understanding and decrease my existential angst

Well, I can give you some Marx?

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

[Wise Fool]

Haha... Is simply an understood onomatopoeia- an informal word. Angsty is a word you've made up and, humorously, petulantly tried to set aside in yet another dismissal. Your second post in which I've interacted with you and the second time you've attacked my character within the first line of the post.

By the way, your ad hominem was in calling me a follower, with two negative adjectives (assuming angsty is negative - is it? Maybe you gave it a definition later in your rant) is a fairly loaded accusation. You're ascribing me motive - a childish follower, blinded by his 'idol'. I just don't have time for petty Internet wars in which someone genuinely attempts to equate 'haha' with their made up words.

Finally, it's not that I'm going to 'petulantly sit and sulk', as you can see I've interacted with others, and much more substantively than you, it's just you I won't be interacting with. Because you seem to me like a troll; a petulant, bratty troll, no less. And in order to avoid this sort of flame war type idiocy, I'm going to block you, assuming I can find a block button. I'd hate to be lured under the bridge again.

Calling you a follower was not an ad hominem, because I was not saying you were wrong because you are a follower. You're right that "angsty" is not a word though. You've certainly got me there. If only you could have responded to any of my actual points instead of nitpicking, deliberately taking offense, name calling and slamming the door dramatically on your way out. Oh well. Concession accepted.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

one can be very committed to those respective superimposed and underlying rhetorical positions (i.e., non-nihilist) and recognize plainly that one's belief in any of them is not dependent upon any individual will or subjectivity (i.e., non-subjective).

I'm definitely neither subjectivist nor nihilist. I'm agnostic. That doesn't means I don't believe in an objective reality. It means I don't believe in any certain knowledge (gnosis).

[Sci-2]

On the subject of immaterial entities (God(s), souls, etc) I made a list of reading arguing for agnosticism on their existence in Religion III.

I think at least some of it makes for interesting, mind sharpening reading even if one doesn't shift their belief/disbelief.

[sologdin]

WWW--

that's the only mature position, I think. even the hard sciences can't contend that they confer certainty. high likelihood, maybe. but all of that is dependent on a phenomenological faith, a linguistic faith, belief in other minds, and so on. belief in that stuff is not unreasonable, but it gets kinda ludicrous when the argument for certainty in these things, as one finds in ayn rand for instance, is simply that those who deny certainty are just obviously crazy.