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

[dornishscorpion]

So i being silly accidentally posted this in a wrong section.i'm just gonna copy what i wrote there:

Greetings

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

[SomeDeadMan]

This is probably such a universal recommendation that at this point it's almost a cliche to even suggest it, but The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is basically essential reading for someone in your position.

You've realised how fallacious religion is - which, for many, is the most difficult step. Now you're at a point where perhaps you're questioning 'If the whole raison d'etre I've been led to believe is false, then what's the point?' Dawkins, in his utter destruction of religious reasoning, goes on to tell us why we really don't need religion. How, in fact, life is better and more fulfilling without it.

So yeah, I really strongly recommend The God Delusion. It's not just a consciousness raiser, it's also extraordinarily well-written. You won't be bored going through it. It's funny, creative, and eyeopening.

I'd also suggest watching Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' debates and interviews on YouTube - they're always entertaining and fun, whilst making you think.

I'm not sure if this will decrease your existential angst per se, but I would also recommend Arthur Schopenhauer, if you're looking for a philosopher. He's a German pessimist, but his view is pretty interesting and quite unique. David Hume, too, would be a good choice. On the more existential side, you have Jean Paul Satre.

[dornishscorpion]

This is probably such a universal recommendation that at this point it's almost a cliche to even suggest it, but The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is basically essential reading for someone in your position.

You've realised how fallacious religion is - which, for many, is the most difficult step. Now you're at a point where perhaps you're questioning 'If the whole raison d'etre I've been led to believe is false, then what's the point?' Dawkins, in his utter destruction of religious reasoning, goes on to tell us why we really don't need religion. How, in fact, life is better and more fulfilling without it.

So yeah, I really strongly recommend The God Delusion. It's not just a consciousness raiser, it's also extraordinarily well-written. You won't be bored going through it. It's funny, creative, and eyeopening.

I'd also suggest watching Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' debates and interviews on YouTube - they're always entertaining and fun, whilst making you think.

I'm not sure if this will decrease your existential angst per se, but I would also recommend Arthur Schopenhauer, if you're looking for a philosopher. He's a German pessimist, but his view is pretty interesting and quite unique. David Hume, too, would be a good choice. On the more existential side, you have Jean Paul Satre.

i kinda beat you to it i already have the God delusion but have not started reading it mainly because i'm already reading about 4 books now simultaneously. I'll make sure to check out the debates on youtube for hearing a live debate about this subject is always interesting for the participants don't have their thoughts as organized compared to as they put them in a book

[peterbound]

try to find a local 'freethinker' or atheist group in your town. They might be able to help you out as well.

[koststerg]

Hello

as a biologist and a Greek and a christian greek-orthodox (so that you know my little biases) I would tell you the following:

1) I wouldn't put much hope on Dawkins to make some sense on all this. Evolution is a solid fact beyond question but to have a biologist prove the non-existance of God is just as clever as having a theologist prove the non-existance of evolution. 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. Don't believe that religions are unmovable and unchangable. All religions during their lifecource faced constantly new questions (philosophical, moral, scientific, sociological or of historical nature) and they have adapted accordingly sometimes dy changing their view (or as they put it by changing the interpretation of the original view but that is a bit more technical).

2) Read as much philosophy as you can and as much as you like but don't expect to get many definite answers from it. Philosophy is a game of mind and a door-opener but in the end you have too many doors opened that its a mess. Math-logic is the only deffinite form of philosophy but is the most boring and difficult (thank god I am a biologist and we don't need a lot of math). After all, even math cann't help you with the subject of god since if god could be described by math he wouldn't be free enough to be god. You should also consider that if all these great philosophers didn't manage to get a definite answer about god,(and this is a good thing because it leaves us free to make our choices) then probably you and I don't have much chances of finding something better, but there is no harm in trying.

3) Don't judge your religion or the other religions by what the religious officials are like or even by what they say. Theology is difficult, few study it, fewer understand it and even fewer are able to talk about it in a constructive and creative way (the majority of religious officials are not included in any of the three categories). Religions are also human institutions and it is logical to have their brighter and darker hours. It would be unreasonable to expect anything different.

4) The most important element of religions is an efford to create communities of people and live your life through them and for them. So, don't worry much about hell or absolute truth or the meaning of life. If god exists, it is better to search him in the relationships you make with other people. I find it more constructive and less frustrating : )

[SomeDeadMan]

I would only say, as a counter to the former poster, that evolution has evidence, God does not. There is no equivalence. This is a conclusion you seem to have got to on your own, but our friend unfortunately is as yet to grasp.

[polishgenius]

Don't touch Dawkins, fucking hell. He might be a good biologist, but he's a dreadful philosopher/theologian. Rational atheists around the world should be embarrassed that this hypocritical charlatan has set himself up as their spokesman. I'm sorry to hear that you were brought up in an area apparently dominated by narrow-minded backwards religious types, but Dawkins is the exact same thing on the other side.

If you must read him (and anyone involving themselves in this debate probably should at some stage just because he comes up so often, though I don't think he should be an introduction), do so mostly to see the people who's work he's discussing (on both sides of the argument) so you can avail yourself of their actual arguments.

[Jo498]

Dawkins is extremely shallow and narrow-minded.

One problem is that even very smart analytic philosophers (much smarter than Dawkins in the logics/argumentation/concepts department) do not seem to grasp central concepts of philosophical theism (or theistic theologies) or they just deny to give them any deeper consideration. (E.g. Russell's flying teapot analogy is just ridiculous, because no theist ever claimed that God was just another thing, that just happened to be hard to observe. Russell's quip that if God exists he is a differential equation is in some respect closer to one aspect of a traditional theistic god.)

If you want to get a good intro to traditional philosophical theism (thomist) check out Edward Feser's website.

That said, Mackie's book on (a)theism is pretty good. There are also some "debate" style books between theist and atheist philosophers, e.g. one with JJC Smart vs. Haldane: Atheism and Theism, 1996.

[Skythe1]

The God Delusion is a pretty amusing book tbh, Dawkins seems to largely miss the point that he's trying to argue and comes across as crass and arrogant. BUT, and it's a big but, that's the point he was going for. He was largely `putting forth a (pseudo)'scientific' argument for why God doesn't exist, and that's what he achieved. It's still worth a read IMO, but I doubt it will help with the points you made in your OP.

[dornishscorpion]

Hello

as a biologist and a Greek and a christian greek-orthodox (so that you know my little biases) I would tell you the following:

1) I wouldn't put much hope on Dawkins to make some sense on all this. Evolution is a solid fact beyond question but to have a biologist prove the non-existance of God is just as clever as having a theologist prove the non-existance of evolution. 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. Don't believe that religions are unmovable and unchangable. All religions during their lifecource faced constantly new questions (philosophical, moral, scientific, sociological or of historical nature) and they have adapted accordingly sometimes dy changing their view (or as they put it by changing the interpretation of the original view but that is a bit more technical).

But the thing is for me religion is supposed to be a message from God to humans therefore i expect it to be something universal and to be valid in all time and space.

4) The most important element of religions is an efford to create communities of people and live your life through them and for them. So, don't worry much about hell or absolute truth or the meaning of life. If god exists, it is better to search him in the relationships you make with other people. I find it more constructive and less frustrating : )

I believe people can achieve that goal without religion. In fact if anything religion have been a tool to control the masses and was the cause of ending of a lot of cultures and the death of countless lives. We could not be inaccurate when we say that religion could be made up to serve political ambition.

[koststerg]

But the thing is for me religion is supposed to be a message from God to humans therefore i expect it to be something universal and to be valid in all time and space.

Every message (even the most perfect) needs interpretation by the receiver and the interpretation is a human act and so limited by space, time and personal desires. (In fact, in christianity one of the reasons behind the division between catholics, orthodox and protestands is who has the right to interprete the holy scriptures.) And where there is interpretation there is change.

I believe people can achieve that goal without religion. In fact if anything religion have been a tool to control the masses and was the cause of ending of a lot of cultures and the death of countless lives. We could not be inaccurate when we say that religion could be made up to serve political ambition.

Of course you can achieve this with or without religion, and it is true that religion has been used as a tool to control the others as has also been used the history of nations, science, even admiration and love for specific persons. Humans will use almost anything to control other humans. Its your choise how to use these things and if you want to make them part of your life.

[sologdin]

DS--

you might try dupuis' origin of all religious worship and campbell's masks of god (4 volumes). these aren't atheist books, necessarily, but attempt to trace the historical development of religious beliefs from ancient ideas.

for atheist readings, maybe: kautsky's foundations of christianity (specifically marxist), smith's atheism: the case against god (probably objectivist), and mckinsey's encyclopedia of biblical errancy. for a venomous broadside that may not be substantiated, but is nonetheless fun, try wheless' forgery in christianity.

for nebulous freethinkery stuff, there's always massey's historical jesus and mythical christ.

[Ranger275]

I would recommend Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. I've heard good things about Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", but haven't read it.

[Ranger275]

Has anybody read "No God but God", by Reza Aslan?

[Tolkiennerd]

Hmm, well I personally agree with you about how religion gives a peace of mind from the alternative that oblivion is what faces us. And frankly, that is my main reason for being religious. There are proofs both for and against God's existence. This has caused a ton of extraordinarily exhausting Youtube debates, as well as the Crusades (I'm not sure which is worse.... (that's a joke for people who don't understand sarcasm)). So, I mean, people can spend their lives trying to find more evidence on this topic, which many people have done, and many people have come to conflicting results.

My personal strategy is to simply hope. See, if there is no God, then there is oblivion, and that sucks. If there is a God or gods, he (or they) could be all-good or grey (I don't personally believe anyone can be all bad... besides Ramsay Snow). Now, the only good scenario I see in this is an all-good God or a God who is mostly good and tries his best to be good.

So, I HOPE in the God of Christianity and have faith that he is who he says he is. (I have no comment on evolution, because I haven't studied it enough to have an opinion) I have not grown up with people who are really blind to anything other than their religion, but I have grown up with people who have tried to push me to believe EXACTLY their type of view on their religion. That sucked, but I just didn't pay attention to them. I hope in a good God, and that's what I believe is the best way to live.

Side note: I use this strategy when reading ASOIAF as well. I could mourn that winter will take over and the Others will rule Westeros, but I hope that Jon Snow claims the Iron Throne as his birthright.

[red snow]

I like Dawkins but he's the atheist version of an evangelist or extremist in your religion of choice. He just doesn't try to encourage violence against those who don't believe in him.

The easiest answer that goes around is that you can only worry about death while you're alive. It's like worrying about before you were born. That's how I look at it. I'm far more worried of an afterlife or reincarnation - particularly the latter as it means I have/will have endured/committed untold atrocities, I'd rather not or at least only have to once.

I imagine biology sort of has an afterlife. If you consider humans are all very similar in the sense we're made up using the same DNA (there's very little difference) , consciousness is probably using the same "basic" machinery. So other people are out there being conscious in the same way you or I are. It's just we all have very different ways of interpreting things due to exposure to different experiences. so as long as there are humans there's sort of an afterlife. If you have children there's even more chance a piece of you lives on as you are providing nurture (and nature DNA if you are a biological parent) there. I guess it's pretty compatible with reincarnation in that sense. I'm sure there are those who've discussed this in far more depth - I probably got it from Dawkins/Hitchens a few years back.

[dornishscorpion]

Hmm, well I personally agree with you about how religion gives a peace of mind from the alternative that oblivion is what faces us. And frankly, that is my main reason for being religious. There are proofs both for and against God's existence. This has caused a ton of extraordinarily exhausting Youtube debates, as well as the Crusades (I'm not sure which is worse.... (that's a joke for people who don't understand sarcasm)). So, I mean, people can spend their lives trying to find more evidence on this topic, which many people have done, and many people have come to conflicting results.

My personal strategy is to simply hope. See, if there is no God, then there is oblivion, and that sucks. If there is a God or gods, he (or they) could be all-good or grey (I don't personally believe anyone can be all bad... besides Ramsay Snow). Now, the only good scenario I see in this is an all-good God or a God who is mostly good and tries his best to be good.

So, I HOPE in the God of Christianity and have faith that he is who he says he is. (I have no comment on evolution, because I haven't studied it enough to have an opinion) I have not grown up with people who are really blind to anything other than their religion, but I have grown up with people who have tried to push me to believe EXACTLY their type of view on their religion. That sucked, but I just didn't pay attention to them. I hope in a good God, and that's what I believe is the best way to live.

Side note: I use this strategy when reading ASOIAF as well. I could mourn that winter will take over and the Others will rule Westeros, but I hope that Jon Snow claims the Iron Throne as his birthright.

i hope that god exists too but as a realist mere hope is not satisfactory . in reality there is only one absolute truth . but each one of us can reach his own subjective truth and be satisfied about it. my goal is to reach a conclusion that satisfies my reason as well as giving me an emotional comfort or tranquility. Christianity i found that as a religion puts a lot of emphasis on emotions alone rather than approaching man's reason. i refuse the idea that God can only be known through faith or that human minds are too limited to grasp even a faint hint of the truth

[Bolivar]

I also recommend staying away from Dawkins if you're serious about reading on the subject, as his books serve little purpose outside of making atheists feel better about themselves. His argument structure is a mess and overflows with logical fallacies. Much of his ideas are premised on his own false stereotypes of religious people, something it doesn't seem like you need more of (no offense OP). The world doesn't need more bigotry and I'm sorry people convinced you that that is what religion is all about.

[dornishscorpion]

I also recommend staying away from Dawkins if you're serious about reading on the subject, as his books serve little purpose outside of making atheists feel better about themselves. His argument structure is a mess and overflows with logical fallacies. Much of his ideas are premised on his own false stereotypes of religious people, something it doesn't seem like you need more of (no offense OP). The world doesn't need more bigotry and I'm sorry people convinced you that that is what religion is all about.

i do not have stereotypes about religious people . In fact one the people i respect most in life is a priest and i'm also a member of the university pastoral team at university ( i do charity with them as well as organise cultural dialogues)

[SomeDeadMan]

I find it fairly preposterous that people are slamming Dawkins as fallacious, illogical, and full of bigotry without providing a single example. Someone even calls him a terrible theologian and philosopher. Er, he isn't a philosopher, and he's certainly not a theologian.

It's become cool to disown Dawkins within the atheist community as there's a sense he's a bit too mean, but I'd strongly suggest you roll your eyes at this, ignore those sorts of criticism, and make up your own mind (which funnily enough, is really all he says to religious people anyway). You see, there's a sort of new hipster atheism, in which we don't really press the fact we don't believe in God - we pretend it's a matter of opinion. I'm not for that.

The idea that he's just as bad as religious zealots is frankly pretty offensive, considering that religious zealots applaud stoning people to death, killing abortion doctors, oppressing women and gay people, etc. Even on the basis that his argument is the equivalent is tragically ignorant. Dawkins sets about destroying religious arguments, he doesn't posit his own. Instead he merely argues scientific truths and points out that religion is incompatible with these. Some people really, really don't like that.

Someone audaciously claims to tear through Bertrand Russell earlier - in something like 30 words, ha - by saying religious people don't believe God is a part of the natural order. Er, then you have no proof for God existing. Various other people make these strange sorts of quips in the thread, much of which are dealt with in The God Delusion, actually. It leads me to question whether they've actually read the book, or are merely assuming that Dawkins is actually trying to scientifically prove that God doesn't exist.