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

[polishgenius]

Er, he isn't a philosopher, and he's certainly not a theologian.

No, he isn't. Which is why The God Delusion, a book about theology and philosophy, is so bad.

He isn't as bad as hardcore religious zealots, obviously. However what he does do is, with massive and surely-not-oblivious hypocrisy, adopt the exact same dogmatic techniques that he claims to hate religion for in the first place. But then, you won't be receptive to that argument, given that you did exactly the same thing just then by bringing up the word zealot at all, when no-one had done that previously, and try to claim a false equivalence that no-one tried to make. That's exactly the kind of dishonest, indoctrinatory tactic that Dawkins claims to dislike but employs himself.

[SomeDeadMan]

No, he isn't. Which is why The God Delusion, a book about theology and philosophy, is so bad.

He isn't as bad as hardcore religious zealots, obviously. However what he does do is, with massive and surely-not-oblivious hypocrisy, adopt the exact same dogmatic techniques that he claims to hate religion for in the first place. But then, you won't be receptive to that argument, given that you did exactly the same thing just then by bringing up the word zealot at all, when no-one had done that previously, and try to claim a false equivalence that no-one tried to make.

It's rare to encounter someone accusing me of making up an accusation... Whilst they make the accusation... Whilst ignoring the fact that they're making the accusation. What a spectacularly ill-conceived paragraph.

1) A book about philosophy and theology isn't simply made bad because it isn't written by a philosopher or theologian - that's fallacious. Not that it matters for the sake of this point. Because you were arguing that he is a bad philosopher and theologian, but now concede that he isn't either... In order to show that he's bad at philosophy and theology. What? He isn't writing philosophy or theology in The God Delusion, he's summarising arguments. If you can make this any clearer, I think it could use it. Because it's currently a mess.

2) Here's the quote, by the way, of someone comparing him to a religious zealot from earlier in this thread:

"I like Dawkins but he's the atheist version of an evangelist or extremist in your religion of choice".

I'd suggest if your bias is blinding you to such obvious facts then your opinion on less obvious ones, and worse still, heavily subjective points in this discussion, may be quite poisoned?

That's exactly the kind of dishonest, indoctrinatory tactic that Dawkins claims to dislike but employs himself.

Yeah, you might want to give an example of that. Because it wouldn't be entirely unfair of me to point out that I've just shown a blatant dishonesty in your argument to strengthen your point. But I won't, and I'll just put it down to an oversight. That aside, you like to play fast and loose with the English language. Are you aware of the definition of 'indoctrination' and all the connotations and implied meaning it comes with? If so, then I would love to see an example of Dawkins' alleged indoctrination. I'd ask for an example of my own, but I think I just blew your example out of the water, didn't I?

[Sci-2]

I'd recommend looking through Nagel's works, there's a collection of essays available at Amazon.

Put me down for also thinking Dawkins is a joke when it comes to serious discussion.

[Jo498]

I do not have the book with me and it's been 7 years or so that I read it. Of course the traditional arguments for the existence of god may be hard to swallow for scientifically minded people. (But then, they were accepted by some of the greatest scientists of all time like Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Faraday, Goedel... all apparently deluded, because slick Dick Dawkins is smarter than any of them?)

For instance, Dawkins treats the famous "five ways" of Aquinas in a very superficial fashion. He uses short summaries of what are arguments based on an elaborate metaphysics that is rather foreign to modern thought. Of course one can disregard this stuff. But it is not a serious discussion when one takes strawmen out of contexts and shows that they clash with modern science when put in naive opposition.

I have a high respect for Russell, but the flying teapot analogy is sophomoric and he should have known better. The Theist God is, above all a first principle (first cause, first mover, absolute necessary existent etc.) One may argue that there is no such "thing", but it is not just another thing (like the invisible teapot) in the first place. And these traditional theistic arguments (like Aristotle's for the prime mover), although thousands of years old, are quite difficult. Metaphysics is difficult and it is an easy way out to deride it as mere nonsense like some smartass sophomore.

[Wise Fool]

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

As a "spiritual" person who is not a flag waving member of any religion, I would say this: you didn't really lose your faith, because you never really had it. A lot, and I suggest actually most, members of religions are so because of tradition, culture, upbringing and habit. Many will remain members, but with a lackadaisical, going-through-the-motions sense of it - attending church or whatnot, the obligatory prayers or rituals. Others will 'awaken' as you did, by noticing the many, many contradictions of various social groups and paradoxical practices and beliefs. Still others simply try to believe harder, be more disciplined and zealous. And yet none of these are really motivated by what William James would call the religious experience, that is to say, a transcending, life-changing, mystic experience of something akin to Gnosis or satori or the like, which is where I think the "truth" of religion really is. Because of this I don't really view most religious followers as "having faith." They simply haven't had the experience, and that's okay, because I'm not sure everyone needs to or ever will.

My position is definitely unorthodox, though. For example I do not believe in an afterlife, and the threat of hell or promise of heaven as punishment/reward for belief and/or behavior seems at best a crude superstition based on a misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness and existence (as religious beliefs and traditions, like a lengthy game of telephone, are wont to create)

That said, you ask if I can recommend reading material to help you with your existential angst. Nope! I don't think books are the solution here. I mean, the fact of our mortal existence (and it's guaranteed termination) looming closer every day is something everyone has to deal with. Some religious folks seem not to be bothered by it, but some non-religious folks aren't bothered either. I would think age and optimism are more likely to be factors in how much discomfort the fact of death creates than something like faith. For me the discomfort has only grown larger as I've gotten older, and I'm only 33, but it's not like I was ever at peace with the idea of death when I was younger. And when I am more pessimistic about my present and future life, death and finality give everything a nasty aftertaste that is more skillfully covered up when I am less pessimistic. Regrets, worries, fears... fear above all, really. And reading does nothing to remove fear.

What works for me is meditation. Just a few minutes a day focusing on my breathing. There are numerous studies that show this helps reduce stress and a number of other positive effects, and anecdotally I can say I feel a bit more "with it" and less prone to cascading discursive thoughts related to existential angst. (I.e., the kind that for me starts with "I can't take a shower because my roommate is in it" and somehow ends with "life is worthless and I hate humanity.")

[Sci-2]

I'd recommend looking through Nagel's works, there's a collection of essays available at Amazon.

Put me down for also thinking Dawkins is a joke when it comes to serious discussion.

Here's one available online:

Nagel's Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament

The question I have in mind is not, of course, “Is there a god?” Rather it is a general question about the relation of individual human life to the universe as a whole. The question is pointed to by its religious answer: namely that our lives are in some way expressions or parts of the spiritual sense of the universe as a whole, and that we must try to live them in light of this, and not only from the point of view of our local purely individual nature. I believe that the question to which this is one possible response remains to be asked even if a religious response is not available, and it is this: How can one bring into one’s individual life a recognition of one’s relation to the universe as a whole, whatever that relation is?

It is important to distinguish this question from the pure desire for understanding of the universe and one’s place in it. It is not an expression of curiosity, however large. And it is not the general intellectual problem of how to combine an objective conception of the universe with the local perspective of one creature within it. It is rather a question of attitude: Is there a way to live in harmony with the universe, and not just in it?

[Eponine]

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

I don't think that most books about god/religion/atheism are going to help you with this. I think you'd be best off not only researching but participating in secular humanism. Your base problem doesn't sound like you need to be convinced of atheism, converted to religion, or to increase your knowledge (not that I think that's ever a bad thing, but I just don't think it's your solution right now), but like you need to start creating meaning in your life. I'm not sure that's something you can read into existence.

[polishgenius]

It's rare to encounter someone accusing me of making up an accusation... Whilst they make the accusation... Whilst ignoring the fact that they're making the accusation. What a spectacularly ill-conceived paragraph.

1) A book about philosophy and theology isn't simply made bad because it isn't written by a philosopher or theologian - that's fallacious. Not that it matters for the sake of this point. Because you were arguing that he is a bad philosopher and theologian, but now concede that he isn't either... In order to show that he's bad at philosophy and theology. What? He isn't writing philosophy or theology in The God Delusion, he's summarising arguments.

You're really going to go down the route of taking everything I say entirely literally even though it's pretty obvious that, whichever expression I use, what I mean is that his lack of training or knowledge of philosophy and theology have resulted in him writing a bad book about them?

Also: yes, he's summarising arguments. Philosophical and theological ones. He's also quite definitely using them to put across his own opinions on the subject. I don't know why Dawkinists think that he isn't involved in a theological discussion just because he isn't a theist. 'Is there a God' is the very root of theology, and to pretend he's not engaging in it while arguing there can't be one is frankly silly. It's an attempt to absolve himself of the need to make his arguments properly.

2) Here's the quote, by the way, of someone comparing him to a religious zealot from earlier in this thread:

"I like Dawkins but he's the atheist version of an evangelist or extremist in your religion of choice".

Extremist may be a bad choice of words (I'd have gone for fundamentalist myself), but you can't have failed to realise that he clearly doesn't mean that Dawkins is a terrorist or a violent man, but that Dawkins is an evangelist seeking to dismiss the other point of view not by engaging with it honestly, but by claiming that anyone holding it is, by virtue of holding it, not worthy of engaging in discussion.

If so, then I would love to see an example of Dawkins' alleged indoctrination.

The entirety of the God Delusion is such. Hell, look at the title- delusion is a loaded word and he didn't need to use that one in particular to get the premise across. He may not even be doing it consciously, but his entire argument is presented in such a way as to paint anyone who disagrees with it as innately foolish and ignorant, and to make anyone who agrees feel like a shining light of intelligence and reason. As such, it's a stick-and-carrot methodology meant to lure the audience into agreeing with his arguments instantly, then shame them away from examining them critically because if you do, you must be deluded.

[Happy Ent]

(But then, they were accepted by some of the greatest scientists of all time like Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Faraday, Goedel... all apparently deluded, because slick Dick Dawkins is smarter than any of them?)

He addresses that in some other book. (I haven’t read the God Delusion.)

He says that before the theory of evolution, the idea of an intelligent designer was the most plausible explanation around, so he himself would surely have believed in Creator-God.

(Disbelief in God is not a function of your own intelligence, but of the available evidence, which includes available theories.)

[Tolkiennerd]

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

Okay, from any worldview (except the theory that the universe is circular and pulsating), something had to come from nothing, or something had to have always existed. I personally don't see any philosophical problem with an infinite being that always existed.

I will concede that the contemporary Church has been spouting a lot of nonsensical emotional rhetoric. I think this is a mistake and a cheap ploy for people who don't want to study their beliefs. There is a book called To Everyone an Answer written by a compilation of authors with different proofs for a logical Christianity.

Christianity is not as unreasonable as many people try to say it is. I won't go into all of them now because I don't want this to turn into the anarchy that is the Youtube comments section (I hate those...)

[Sci-2]

I should also recommend Reasonable Faith.

It's a pretty good forum where people discuss God's existence among other things.

I know the Christian Apologist Feser goes through the varied proofs of God & proofs of souls, though I've only read the stuff about souls so far.

I don't think this sort of thing convinces many people, but it's a good idea to line up the best theist philosophy with the best atheist philosophy rather than relying on Dawkins.

[SomeDeadMan]

You're really going to go down the route of taking everything I say entirely literally even though it's pretty obvious that, whichever expression I use, what I mean is that his lack of training or knowledge of philosophy and theology have resulted in him writing a bad book about them?

Also: yes, he's summarising arguments. Philosophical and theological ones. He's also quite definitely using them to put across his own opinions on the subject. I don't know why Dawkinists think that he isn't involved in a theological discussion just because he isn't a theist. 'Is there a God' is the very root of theology, and to pretend he's not engaging in it while arguing there can't be one is frankly silly. It's an attempt to absolve himself of the need to make his arguments properly.

This is getting a bit silly. Am I really going to take everything you say literally? How would you rather I take everything you say? Metaphorically? Figuratively? Allegorically? Symbolically? Yes, I'm going to take everything you say literally, unless I have reason to suspect you aren't being literal. You calling someone a philosopher and theologian as a criticism looks about as literal as it could be.

You say a whole bunch of other things that don't really work either. You assume Dawkins' knowledge of theology and philosophy - when you have no Godly way of knowing his knowledge of these subjects, then use this 'assumed' lack of knowledge to say that's why he's wrote a bad book about these subjects. Well, no. I'm not accepting it's a bad book. It's a good book, it's a critically acclaimed book - obviously not objective proof, but it sure beats 'It's a bad book because I say he hasn't enough knowledge to write about these subjects'.

'Is there a God' may be the very route of theology, but it's also unfortunately dragged into science. The same discussion would look very different depending on which field you're on. Theologians may argue "There is a God - his name is Allah", 'No, his name is Yahweh', 'No! It's Shiva!' One doesn't need to involve oneself in such nonsense in order to debate the idea that there is a God - in fact, I wish one did have to be involved in said nonsense to question this fact, but alas, too many religious people assert that God factually exists. So science is necessary. Theology is the study of the internal belief system of religion - it's why almost exclusively theologians are religious. It's ludicrous to suggest one must engage in theology to debate the existence of God. Dawkins only gets into theological arguments to point out blatant fallacies: Virgin birth, walking on water, raising from the dead, revelations, etc.

Extremist may be a bad choice of words (I'd have gone for fundamentalist myself), but you can't have failed to realise that he clearly doesn't mean that Dawkins is a terrorist or a violent man, but that Dawkins is an evangelist seeking to dismiss the other point of view not by engaging with it honestly, but by claiming that anyone holding it is, by virtue of holding it, not worthy of engaging in discussion.

It doesn't matter what was a bad choice of words, you were extremely clear. You said I was making things up as some sort of method of indoctrination. Maybe you should apologise.

Fundamentalist is an equally preposterous word that doesn't apply here. He's not dismissing the other side of the argument as if it's not worthy, he regularly holds debates, and is good friends, with many well respected religious leaders. I have no idea where you get that from. Just Google 'Dawkins debates'. And what exactly is he evangelising? Science? Good.

The entirety of the God Delusion is such. Hell, look at the title- delusion is a loaded word and he didn't need to use that one in particular to get the premise across. He may not even be doing it consciously, but his entire argument is presented in such a way as to paint anyone who disagrees with it as innately foolish and ignorant, and to make anyone who agrees feel like a shining light of intelligence and reason. As such, it's a stick-and-carrot methodology meant to lure the audience into agreeing with his arguments instantly, then shame them away from examining them critically because if you do, you must be deluded.

You just said 'delusion' is a loaded word painting anyone who disagrees as foolish and ignorant. So, er, how does that indoctrinate the religious into, assumedly, atheism? That makes absolutely no sense. Stating your point of view in your book that people can choose to read is not indoctrination. Indoctrination would be forcing a 4 year old child into sitting listening, at his educational establishment, to some 'holy man' yapping on about how his chosen fairy tale is real and how said child must obey the rules of said fairy tale, then at the weekend taking that child to some holy place to sit and listen to the fairy tale being read to the community, then telling the child at night that he needs to pray to the fairy tale. Every day. For all of childhood. See the difference?

[Wise Fool]

If Dawkins, and by extension his more angsty and petulant followers (i.e. SomeDeadMan) was just advocating science, relatively few would have issues about it. But when they (e.g. above) are trying to use "science" to address "fallacies" of religious belief it amounts to this weird crusade against religion. And you can sense this by the generally hostile and dismissive sentiments brayed, from something like "the God Delusion" to describing religious beliefs as superstitious, blatant fallacies, nonsense - why, even priests don't merely "talk," not in the Dawkinsverse - they are "yapping."

When you drip with scorn and derision about religion, and that's all you're talking about, it doesn't come across like you're merely fond of science. It sounds like you're a fundamentalist, and whether that is true of Dawkins I wouldn't know, but I know what I'm reading from you here. It's the same kind of tone one gets from people who similarly apply pseudo-psychiatric labels (i.e. "delusion") to beliefs they don't agree with (i.e. "liberalism is a mental disorder") and the intense fervor of a Ron Paul Libertarian talking (one might say, "yapping") about how taxation is theft et al. The tone of a close-minded fundamentalist, as opposed to slights against his icon of choice (in this case Dawkins) as others are to slights against, say, Mohammed.

It's understandable why people try to distance themselves from Dawkins, which is quite a shame since he's smart and makes his points pretty clear. I suppose one might say the same of Ron Paul for that matter, but I wouldn't really know - these are people I know mostly indirectly by their followings, and they are not terribly impressive followings. And when it comes to something like religious or political belief, this kind of battering-ram style of "communication" is more about shouting loudly and waving your flag than in convincing anybody of anything, or achieving any other goal other than the usual emotional one most people ever have when arguing on the internet.

[SomeDeadMan]

"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.

[Sci-2]

If a person is serious about theism vs naturalism, they should read actual arguments from philosophy.

God Delusion is, at best, a second-hand account of such debates.

[SomeDeadMan]

If a person is serious about theism vs naturalism, they should read actual arguments from philosophy.

God Delusion is, at best, a second-hand account of such debates.

Agreed. One should certainly engage with the higher works. I just find The God Delusion particularly accessible, it's why I think it's a good book to recommend. But alas, the OP already owns it!

[Jo498]

He addresses that in some other book. (I haven’t read the God Delusion.)

He says that before the theory of evolution, the idea of an intelligent designer was the most plausible explanation around, so he himself would surely have believed in Creator-God.

(Disbelief in God is not a function of your own intelligence, but of the available evidence, which includes available theories.)

Unfortunately this only shows the Dawkins really doesn't know much about the "classical" theistic arguments.

The "intelligent design" argument is not at all prominent there. (The most famous version, from Paley stems from the late 18th cent. when evolutionary ideas where already in the air) It is only the most interesting for Dawkins, because it is one of the few he understands to some extent and that can be easily connected to evolution (and because there are ID proponents among contemporary believers). Furthermore, cosmological fine tuning could be used as a non-biological design case (this is not a great argument to begin with, I think, but the standard "multiverse" reply is IMO as dubious as any traditional theistic argument).

E.g. Galileo seems to hint at some argument from the rational understandability of the world when he says that the book of nature is written by God in the language of geometry and maths. This could be construed as a version of the Argument from Design, but it is completely independent from Darwinian biology, so it does not become more or less plausible by the acceptance of evolution. (The unreasonable effectiveness of maths is accepted as brute fact by most contemporaries, but this does not make such an argument as Galileo could have had in mind weak. It has to be examined, not just contrasted with a received wisdom.)

Descartes uses a version of the ontological argument in the "Meditations" and a causal argument, no design whatsoever.

Dawkins would tear up any book that would show so little knowledge and understanding and treated arguments or theories from biology in such a superficial fashion as he does in the God Delusion, and he would be right to do so. One problem is that his knowledge and understanding of philosophical and theological arguments is so poor that he is not aware of this deficit. It's like the effect with the mediocre students overestimating their test performance. In Dawkins case it is, of course, not lack of intelligence, but intellectual blinders and a surprisingly narrow mind (which is unfortunately rather frequent in some scientists, maybe that's o.k. as long as they do what they are good at).

[Gormenghast]

I wouldn't really brag about this, but my blog has all the answers! ;)

Well, if you accept non-answers as well. I'm like Bakker but more accessible (and far less smart).

Basically, I'm just more likely to tell you in what kind of forms god might take, and specifically what kinds of limits science can have.

So, not answers, but the definition of the relative perimeter of things, so that one knows where things stand, at least.

Mostly done through analysis.

[SomeDeadMan]

Unfortunately this only shows the Dawkins really doesn't know much about the "classical" theistic arguments.

The "intelligent design" argument is not at all prominent there. (The most famous version, from Paley stems from the late 18th cent. when evolutionary ideas where already in the air) It is only the most interesting for Dawkins, because it is one of the few he understands to some extent and that can be easily connected to evolution (and because there are ID proponents among contemporary believers). Furthermore, cosmological fine tuning could be used as a non-biological design case (this is not a great argument to begin with, I think, but the standard "multiverse" reply is IMO as dubious as any traditional theistic argument).

E.g. Galileo seems to hint at some argument from the rational understandability of the world when he says that the book of nature is written by God in the language of geometry and maths. This could be construed as a version of the Argument from Design, but it is completely independent from Darwinian biology, so it does not become more or less plausible by the acceptance of evolution. (The unreasonable effectiveness of maths is accepted as brute fact by most contemporaries, but this does not make such an argument as Galileo could have had in mind weak. It has to be examined, not just contrasted with a received wisdom.)

Descartes uses a version of the ontological argument in the "Meditations" and a causal argument, no design whatsoever.

Dawkins would tear up any book that would show so little knowledge and understanding and treated arguments or theories from biology in such a superficial fashion as he does in the God Delusion, and he would be right to do so. One problem is that his knowledge and understanding of philosophical and theological arguments is so poor that he is not aware of this deficit. It's like the effect with the mediocre students overestimating their test performance. In Dawkins case it is, of course, not lack of intelligence, but intellectual blinders and a surprisingly narrow mind (which is unfortunately rather frequent in some scientists, maybe that's o.k. as long as they do what they are good at).

I find philosophical arguments boring, to be honest. Particularly when it comes to the semantic games 'proving' or 'disproving' God.

I find it awfully bizarre, though, to see someone suggest that Descartes did not champion the idea of intelligent design. When I studied philosophy at University, and was dragged through his Meditations, it was hammered into us that his argument was tautological, obviously, but one of intelligent design. In fact, you're the first person I've ever witnessed refuting that.

And also, Dawkins actually said that those who came before Darwin were unlikely to be of any worth in the conversation of how we came into existence, because they were missing a fundamental piece of the jigsaw. I just don't get why anyone would need intelligent design anyway, when we have Occam's razor cutting it to pieces.

[Happy Ent]

Unfortunately this only shows the Dawkins really doesn't know much about the "classical" theistic arguments.

I understand this, and agree to a large extent. No blanket endorsement of Dawkins’ arguments was intended.