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

[Tiranasta]

I call myself an atheist. That doesn't mean that I am absolutely 100% certain that there are no gods. It means that I consider the probability to be sufficiently low that 'atheist' far more accurately describes what I believe than 'agnostic'. In my experience, a very large portion of people who call themselves atheists mean something similar (I once had a friend who did claim complete certainty, but in my experience that is pretty rare).

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Atheist and agnostic are terms that basically discuss two different things:

first is connected with metaphysics and question about existence of sentient Absolute
second with epistemologics and question about nature of knowledge

It's like evolutionists and creationists, those two are not oppositions.

[Larry of the Lawn]

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.

Aha! A fellow Ajencian!

[Sci-2]

Keeping up with reading suggestions:

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.

1) On that note, I'd recommend Don Salmon's SHAVING SCIENCE WITH OCKHAM'S RAZOR.

2) While it's on my TBR list I'd still recommend Ladyman and Ross's Every Thing Must Go. The skeptic Massimo offers an analysis here + here in a two part essay entitled Surprise! Naturalistic metaphysics undermines naive determinism.

3) Anti-Matters

It is not the (primary) aim of AntiMatters to “convert” die-hard materialists. Instead, the Journal offers non-materialists the opportunity of a stimulating exchange of views. It invites comments on articles accepted for publication and encourages comments on published articles. Authors will of course be allowed to respond to comments.

Discussions of “anomalies,” which are neglected or ignored by mainstream science, also fall within the scope of the Journal.

[Larry.]

I much prefer the type of discussion that Umberto Eco and Cardinal Marini had about issues of faith and morality without religion than what the so-called "New Atheists" have to say. But that's just me. The book is a collection of thoughtful letters the two had in outlining secular/Catholic views on a host of contemporary issues and I suspect might make for a good corollary to what the OP might be seeking to discover.

[Grogsmash]

The God Delusion is quite good. Yes, it isn't written for believers. However, it is quite a good primer on the common arguments for gods existence and the rebuttals to them, told in an amusing way.

Read it when you get a chance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Grogsmash,

I haven't attempted to argue there is empirical evidence for God's existence, ever. It's a matter of faith not of empirical proof. How does Dawkins address that?

[SomeDeadMan]

Grogsmash,

I haven't attempted to argue there is empirical evidence for God's existence, ever. It's a matter of faith not of empirical proof. How does Dawkins address that?

By saying you're entirely entitled to your belief. Dawkins believes it's intellectually wrong to have faith, but he's just a secularist. This is why I find the hysterics on the other side of the argument very difficult. Dawkins has the respect to treat religious beliefs as if it were a scientific theory. If you don't believe it is, then he's really not talking to you at all.

[Castel]

Grogsmash,

I haven't attempted to argue there is empirical evidence for God's existence, ever. It's a matter of faith not of empirical proof. How does Dawkins address that?

He thinks your faith is misguided, basically. And that's how he would put it.

No doubt he would also imply that your faith is arbitrary and the usual arguments for it are also arbitrarily applied and so on.

I imagine sooner or later it comes down to a basic argument for skepticism.

[Jo498]

What Dawkins (and Dennett etc.) utterly fails to comprehend is that traditional theistic arguments for the existence of god are NOT supposed to be empirical science or close any gaps of empirical science. Feser (linked by someone above) has lots of material concerning that failure (he is a somewhat rabid catholic, but he is quite right in this respect, he is also right that Dawkins etc. usually present strawman travesties of the supposedly traditional arguments).

They are metaphysical arguments. OF COURSE they clash with Dawkins' scientism and its implied (and not very well thought out) metaphysics. But Dawkins is not really defending his metaphysics. He just claims that it not only follows from science, but is the only one compatible with science, which is both simply wrong. He is not doing anyone a favor by treating something as an empirical theory when it is not such a theory and never pretended to be one. In the end he basically states his worldview (which he does not see in need of defense, because it seems obvious to him). Not much more. The book is not for believers, neither for those interested in arguments for the existence of god or the philosophy of religion. It is for those who like Dawkins already are confirmed naturalists.

[Castel]

nvm

[Grogsmash]

The book is not for believers, neither for those interested in arguments for the existence of god or the philosophy of religion. It is for those who like Dawkins already are confirmed naturalists.

Most people in the world grow up in religious families. Their entire lives, they are told that they should believe in a particular religion. To not believe in it is absurd and that the arguments against religion are weak. Yet even in that environment, many people decide that religion just doesn't make sense. All kinds of reasons they could come to this conclusion, from all the conflicting religious texts in the world (all claiming they are the one truth), to the silliness of many religions sending everyone else to hell (even people who, due to the accident of where they were born, never had the opportunity to be raised in the "true" religion). Or even to the complete lack of any sort of evidence for any of the faiths, or maybe to the absolute horrors that religion routinely is responsible for.

To these people, it can seem like they are the crazy ones. If pretty much everyone you have ever met has told you atheists are soulless, have no morals, how do you expect these people to feel when suddenly they find themselves to be one? It can a very confusing time. Dawkin's book is directed at those people, which he clearly points out at the start of his book. I happen to think it is quite good for many other people, but if you are a deeply committed religious person, you probably won't enjoy it. He certainly is quite honest in how silly and conflicting he finds many religious beliefs. I imagine that can be hard to hear for some.

[Jo498]

He should have been able to distinguish between religious practice (including superstitions etc.) and philosophical and theological arguments. But he misunderstands and misrepresents the latter and thinks they are hogwash (some of the caricatures he presents indeed are, but these are not the arguments presented by the theistic thinkers of the last 2400 years).

Here is one example of Feser's (not sure if there's an explicit reference to Dawkins, but it fits)

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.de/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

[Grogsmash]

The cosmological argument, as formulated by that link, is quite weak. The third point says it doesn't support any religion in particular. The sixth point basically says that the argument shouldn't have any connection to anything in science. Why would Dawkin's bother arguing with that version of the argument, when the vast majority of the time it is used in a much stronger fashion?

Anyway, be happy in your faith I guess. The OP clearly wasn't and is having some existential angst. I can't think of a better book than the God Delusion for that.

Now if he really gets angry at religion, he can branch out and read God is Not Great or The End of Faith.

[Rorshach]

The cosmological argument, as formulated by that link, is quite weak. The third point says it doesn't support any religion in particular. The sixth point basically says that the argument shouldn't have any connection to anything in science. Why would Dawkin's bother arguing with that version of the argument, when the vast majority of the time it is used in a much stronger fashion?

Anyway, be happy in your faith I guess. The OP clearly wasn't and is having some existential angst. I can't think of a better book than the God Delusion for that.

Now if he really gets angry at religion, he can branch out and read God is Not Great or The End of Faith.

The link says, in the beginning, that it's not formulating the cosmological argument - it points out what doesn't amount to intelligent replies.

[Grogsmash]

The link says, in the beginning, that it's not formulating the cosmological argument - it points out what doesn't amount to intelligent replies.

Of course he lays out a version of the argument. When he says that the cosmological argument doesn't prove that christianity isn't true, well, unfortunately that is often how that argument is used. Certainly if you are talking to a christian and they bring it up, they will say "so therefore God exists" and they aren't talking about some random God, but the God they believe in.

Since we are on the subject of Dawkin's, the Selfish Gene is also very good. It is often hard for people to see how things like altruism can evolve in a world of selfishness. This book I think is a good layman's guide to how it can happen and very entertaining. I'm planning on listening to the Blind Watchmaker when I get a chance.

[Rorshach]

Of course he lays out a version of the argument. When he says that the cosmological argument doesn't prove that christianity isn't true, well, unfortunately that is often how that argument is used. Certainly if you are talking to a christian and they bring it up, they will say "so therefore God exists" and they aren't talking about some random God, but the God they believe in.

Since we are on the subject of Dawkin's, the Selfish Gene is also very good. It is often hard for people to see how things like altruism can evolve in a world of selfishness. This book I think is a good layman's guide to how it can happen and very entertaining. I'm planning on listening to the Blind Watchmaker when I get a chance.

You didn't read the link carefully, did you?

If I'm not mistaken, he says (and means) that "your pastor Bob doesn't count" - which means that the argument exists even if people use it wrong. Hence, you can't say to have grappled with the argument if you go for it in a form in which it isn't presented. Which means that the bolded part is - in this context - uninteresting.

[Grogsmash]

Just because you find it uninteresting, or that the link finds it uninteresting, doesn't mean the OP will or other people will. The God Delusion also responds to many of those points about the cosmological argument. I am just trying to point out that the cosmological argument in that article is much "weaker" than the one in common use.

Anyway, in thousands of years of man's existence, a great many people have spent a lot of time trying to prove God's existence. Responding to all of them in one book is going to be pretty hard. I think the God Delusion does a pretty admirable job trying to handle that tough task.

[Rorshach]

Just because you find it uninteresting, or that the link finds it uninteresting, doesn't mean the OP will or other people will. The God Delusion also responds to many of those points about the cosmological argument. I am just trying to point out that the cosmological argument in that article is much "weaker" than the one in common use.

??????????????????????

Like, seriously: ???????????????????????????

Firstly, the "common form" (which no philosopher has made) can be rebutted by "who made God"? Anything weaker would be next to impossible to come by.

Secondly, as has been said (and it's valid, even if you don't get it), the link doesn't flesh out the cosmological argument. Seriously. It doesn't. And since you so helpfully point out that Dawkins responds to these points, that means he doesn't respond to the cosmological argument either.

Geddit? No cosmological argument there, just the silly misunderstandings and strawmen normally attributed to it.

[SomeDeadMan]

??????????????????????

Like, seriously: ???????????????????????????

Firstly, the "common form" (which no philosopher has made) can be rebutted by "who made God"? Anything weaker would be next to impossible to come by.

Secondly, as has been said (and it's valid, even if you don't get it), the link doesn't flesh out the cosmological argument. Seriously. It doesn't. And since you so helpfully point out that Dawkins responds to these points, that means he doesn't respond to the cosmological argument either.

Geddit? No cosmological argument there, just the silly misunderstandings and strawmen normally attributed to it.

Why are so many of you guys on the anti-Dawkins side so hostile?