How Do You Know That Which You Claim to Know?
Ed Babinski sent me a list of books and said, "Simply reading book titles and descriptions is an education in itself, and a reminder that philosophy and religion still appear to raise more questions than answers." I've taken the time to hyperlink some of them below. Anyone who understands the slightest bit of epistemology knows enough not to claim he or she knows too much with any degree of assuredness. Doubt about what we claim to know is a virtue. This is one of the reasons I doubt the Christian claims. Most Christians claim to know what they believe with complete assuredness. Just read their comments here at DC. I have repeatedly made the distinction between claiming to know something and doubting someone's claims. I simply doubt the Christian claims, and the following books could give Christians an insight into why this is reasonable to do...
On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not
A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
The You You Don't Know: Covert Influences on Your Behaviour
Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking
Knowledge and Its Limits
Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology
What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty
Here is Ed's complete list:
On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by Robert Burton
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209/ref=cm_lmf_tit_8_rsrsrs1
A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives by Cordelia Fine
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Its-Own-Distorts-Deceives/dp/0393331636/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1EBHU51TMKC3B&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior by Ori Brafman (Author), Rom Brafman (Author) 'A page-turner of an investigation into how our minds work . . . and trick us. Think you behave rationally? Read this book first. If you think you know how you think, you'd better think again! Take this insightful, delightful trip to the sweet spot where economics, psychology, and sociology converge, and you'll discover how our all-too-human minds actually work.
http://www.amazon.com/Sway-Irresistible-Pull-Irrational-Behavior/dp/0385524382/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IG3HYXXKTL1R4&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Hidden-Forces-Decisions/dp/006135323X/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I13YS4H0IYCY47&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
The You You Don't Know: Covert Influences on Your Behaviour by Webster, Jr. Riggs (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/You-Dont-Know-Influences-Behaviour/dp/1573921165/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1DWXB4P0S0RU1&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life by Sandra Aamodt (Author), Sam Wang (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Your-Brain-Puzzles-Everyday/dp/1596912839/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I9BX8F0U6847Z&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers by Daniel L. Schacter
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Sins-Memory-Forgets-Remembers/dp/0618219196/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IUAP5JN3OTO94&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking by Thomas E. Kida
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Everything-You-Think/dp/1591024080/ref=cm_lmf_tit_31_rsrsrs1
The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule by Donald W. Pfaff (Author), Edward O. Wilson (Foreword) http://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Fair-Play-Usually-Follow/dp/1932594272/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IIFQ3U919F0LT&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God by David J. Linden (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Mind-Evolution-Memory-Dreams/dp/0674024788/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3K1EGC0BMX9GZ&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind
by Gary Marcus
http://www.amazon.com/Kluge-Haphazard-Construction-Human-Mind/dp/0618879641/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IDBMZRL1NRRG2&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves by Sharon Begley (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345479890/ref=reg_hu-wl_mrai-recs
The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science (James H. Silberman Books) by Norman Doidge (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself-Frontiers/dp/0143113100/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2KIHYL8UOMONB&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
The Body Has a Mind of Its Own: How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do (Almost) Everything Better by Sandra Blakeslee (Author), Matthew Blakeslee (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Has-Mind-Its-Own/dp/1400064694/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_title_5
Beautiful Minds: The Parallel Lives of Great Apes and Dolphins by Maddalena Bearzi (Author), Craig B. Stanford (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Minds-Parallel-Lives-Dolphins/dp/0674027817/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I34NY8KEPO765A&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
In Search Of The Soul: Four [CHRISTIAN] Views Of The Mind-body Problem by Joel B. Green (Editor), Stuart L. Palmer (Editor), Kevin Corcoran (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Soul-Views-Mind-body-Problem/dp/0830827730/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I17B7NCECJXWSC&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities by Gilles Fauconnier (Author), Mark Turner
(Author) Numerous examples are offered to illustrate conceptual blending and to demonstrate how it may play out in different 'conceptual niches.' Blends, which occur constantly without our awareness, are critical for the creation of emergent meanings and 'global insight.' The authors further argue that language surfaced naturally once the capacity for blending had developed to a critical level about 50,000 years ago. This theory requires a language of its own, generating such terms as counterfactual thinking, compression, projection, and vital relations. While skillfully written, the text, like the human mind, is rather complex. Recommended for cognitive science collections in academic libraries. A dazzling tour of the complexities of human imagination.'
http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Think-Conceptual-Complexities/dp/0465087868/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_title_5
More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor by George Lakoff (Author), Mark Turner (Author) 'In this bold and powerful book, Lakoff and Turner continue their use of metaphor to show how our minds get hold of the world. They have achieved nothing less than a postmodern Understanding Poetry, a new way of reading and teaching that makes poetry again important.'
http://www.amazon.com/More-than-Cool-Reason-Metaphor/dp/0226468127/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_title_4
Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought by George Lakoff (Author), Mark Johnson (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Flesh-Embodied-Challenge-Western/dp/0465056741/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason by Mark Johnson (Author) 'There are books—few and far between—which carefully, delightfully, and genuinely turn your head inside out. This is one of them. It ranges over some central issues in Western philosophy and begins the long overdue job of giving us a radically new account of meaning, rationality, and objectivity.'
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Mind-Bodily-Meaning-Imagination/dp/0226403181/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_title_3
Neither Gods Nor Beasts
How Science Is Changing Who We Think We Are by Elof Axel Carlson (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Neither-Beasts-Science-Changing-Think/dp/0879697865/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I12NMNQCY0LUR8&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind (Contemporary Debates in Philosophy) by Brian McLaughlin (Editor), Jonathan Cohen (Editor) Comprises 20 newly commissioned essays on hotly debated issues in the philosophy of mind. Written by a cast of leading experts in their fields, essays take opposing views on 10 central contemporary debates.
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Debates-Philosophy-Mind/dp/1405117613/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3N5CZFF3HT8LG&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Knowledge and Its Limits by Timothy Williamson
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Its-Limits-Timothy-Williamson/dp/019925656X/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3PP1V8VTZ98IO&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Beyond the Limits of Thought by Graham Priest (Author) 'Four limits of thought in particular will concern us in the book: the limits of the expressible, the limits of the iterable (the mathematical infinite),...' 'a splendid tour de force, one which should be read by every philosopher...' `highly entertaining and provocative... an engaging and instructive tour through some of the most perplexing features of our own conceptual finitude...' `clever, resourceful, undogmatic, unpretentious, often sensible and usually clear over a wide range of issues'
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Limits-Thought-Graham-Priest/dp/0199244219/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2YQOOP3SO4VCY&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Labyrinths of Reason: Paradox, Puzzles, and the Frailty of Knowledge by William Poundstone
'a dazzling tour de force' We conceive of and describe the world in ways that usually work just fine, but in the far corners of the labyrinth of reason, our best intentions fold back on themselves, and we end up trapped in an intractable loop or tumbling down a chute of infinite regress. Labyrinths of Reason is a collection of classic philosophical thought experiments and other imponderables that push reason and language to their logical limits. Beyond just idle brainteasers, William Poundstone shows that these mental exercises have profound implications for such fields as cryptography, decision theory, subatomic physics, and computer programming. But most of all, they're good, clean philosophical fun!
http://www.amazon.com/Labyrinths-Reason-Paradox-Puzzles-Knowledge/dp/0385242719/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IXW224Q6Y37HL&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind by Roy Sorensen
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Paradox-Philosophy-Labyrinths/dp/0195159039/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IOJHJMQHT3UM4&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy) [Rev. Expand. 2nd Ed.--May 31, 2008] by Graham Priest (Author) 'Priest succeeds in offering a marvellously unified treatment of 11 varieties of logic: classical, basic modal, normal modal, non-normal, conditional, intuitionist, many-valued, first-degree entailment, basic relevant, mainstream relevant, and fuzzy ... Excellent references support this concise but clear treatment.' 'bound to be the classic on non-classical logics for many years to come.'
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521670268/ref=reg_hu-wl_mrai-recs
Possibilities and Paradox: An Introduction to Modal and Many-Valued Logic (by J. C. Beall (Author), Bas C. van Fraassen (Author) 'A clear, self-contained, unified introduction to a variety of extensions and alternatives to classical logic.'
http://www.amazon.com/Possibilities-Paradox-Introduction-Modal-Many-Valued/dp/0199259879/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
Logical Pluralism by J. C. Beall (Author), Greg Restall (Author) In this book JC Beall and Greg Restall present and defend what thay call logical pluralism, the view that there is more than one genuine deductive consequence relation, a position which has profound implications for many linguists as well as for philosophers. We should not search
for one true logic, since there are many.
http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Pluralism-J-C-Beall/dp/0199288410/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1I7RI93IOWV8P&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays by Graham Priest (Editor), J. C. Beall (Editor), Bradley Armour-Garb (Editor)
The Law of Non-Contradiction -- that no contradiction can be true -- has been a seemingly unassailable dogma since the work of Aristotle, in Book G of the Metaphysics. It is an assumption challenged from a variety of angles in this collection of original papers. Twenty-three of the world's
leading experts investigate the 'law,' considering arguments for and against it and discussing methodological issues that arise whenever we question the legitimacy of logical principles. The result is a balanced inquiry into a venerable principle of logic, one that raises questions at the very center of logic itself.
Doubt Truth to Be a Liar by Graham Priest
Defends 'paraconsistent logic' (challenging the law of non-contradiction) which runs against orthodoxy in logic and metaphysics since Aristotle, and has implications for many of the core notions of philosophy. Doubt Truth to Be a Liar explores these implications for truth, rationality, negation, and the nature of logic, and develops further the defense of dialetheism first mounted in Priest's In Contradiction, a second edition of which is also available.
http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Truth-Liar-Graham-Priest/dp/0199263280/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I14E2BX6LUPT85&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Liars and Heaps: New Essays on Paradox by JC Beall (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Heaps-New-Essays-Paradox/dp/0199264813/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1Q3TM4X94AIHS&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology by Michael Williams
http://www.amazon.com/Problems-Knowledge-Critical-Introduction-Epistemology/dp/0192892568/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I6LP9KZGSEXSA&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Vagueness: A Reader by Rosanna Keefe (Editor), Peter Smith (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Vagueness-Reader-Rosanna-Keefe/dp/0262611457/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I26G5XOFX03FVS&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Vagueness (Problems of Philosophy) by Timothy Williamson
http://www.amazon.com/Vagueness-Problems-Philosophy-Timothy-Williamson/dp/0415139805/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I95GYC9AXTXMX&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Vagueness and Contradiction by Roy Sorensen (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Vagueness-Contradiction-Roy-Sorensen/dp/019927116X/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3TIVCS3AA7ENY&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Empty Names, Fiction and the Puzzles of Non-Existence (Center for the Study of Language and Information - Lecture Notes) by Anthony Everett (Editor), Thomas Hofweber (Editor) Philosophers and theorists have long been puzzled by humans' ability to talk about things that do not exist, or to talk about things that they think exist but, in fact, do not. Empty Names, Fiction, and the Puzzles of Non-Existence is a collection of 13 new works concerning the semantic and metaphysical issues arising from empty names, non-existence, and the nature of fiction. The contributors include some of the most important researchers working in these fields. Some of the papers develop and defend new positions on these matters, while others offer important new perspectives and criticisms of the existing approaches. The volume contains a comprehensive introductory essay by the editors, which provides a survey of the philosophical issues concerning empty names, the various responses to these issues, and the literature on the subject to date.
http://www.amazon.com/Fiction-Puzzles-Non-Existence-Language-Information/dp/1575862549/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3LXQ2UQYZG6JD&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Holes and Other Superficialities (Bradford Books) by Roberto Casati (Author), Achille C. Varzi (Author) It is wonderful to see how intelligent philosophers can take a modest concept, such as that of the hole, as a starting point for an immense and brilliant exercise.... The writing is delightful. The authors want us to think of absences as full-fledged cognitive entities. The book describes a grand variety of holes -- holes in doughnuts, tunnels through blocks, flowing gaps in regularly-spaced flowerbed, and hundreds more. There are an enormous number of beautifully-rendered illustrations of every imaginable (and often never-before-imagined) type of hole....The overlap with philosophical issues of every sort is marvelous, and the authors have a delightful sense of humor.'
http://www.amazon.com/Holes-Other-Superficialities-Bradford-Books/dp/026253133X/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2AZ0M6FRLNLAC&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
The Shadow Club: The Greatest Mystery in the Universe--Shadows--and the Thinkers Who Unlocked Their Secrets by Roberto Casati (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Club-Greatest-Universe-Shadows-Thinkers/dp/0375407278/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IMA5CFN7CYOB4&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Shadows: Unlocking Their Secrets, from Plato to Our Time by Roberto Casati
http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Unlocking-Their-Secrets-Plato/dp/0375707115/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2YUTAGX9RKI7B&colid=1OBWAFG152ZYS
Science at the Edge: Conversations with the Leading Scientific Thinkers of Today by John Brockman (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Edge-Conversations-Scientific-Thinkers/dp/1402754507/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I18WS76VMJ1XUI&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman
http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1P4QVGFHC2QG0&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the Twenty-first Century by John Brockman
http://www.amazon.com/Next-Fifty-Years-Science-Twenty-first/dp/0375713425/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2M4STZF2FOJLI&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
Wrestling With Doubt: Theological Reflections on the Journey of Faith by Frank D. Rees
http://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-Doubt-Theological-Reflections-Journey/dp/0814625908/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I152QRSVGEB87V&colid=2CQDBZYQXUFB8
The God Problem by Nigel Leaves
http://www.amazon.com/God-Problem-Nigel-Leaves/dp/0944344984/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1AHT0VXFII8HT&colid=2CQDBZYQXUFB8
God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer
by Bart D. Ehrman (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-Answer-Important-Question-Why/dp/0061173975/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2W065J1YZD1L6&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
God, Do You Exist?: The Questions of a Curious Agnostic by Lester C. Graham
http://www.amazon.com/God-Do-You-Exist-Questions/dp/1414079362/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I11HSVCEBA88BJ&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
In God We Doubt by John Humphrys
This is not a Dawkins or Hitchens kind of book that believers can fairly attack as one written by a 'Militant Atheist', though the people who use that description have not explained whether they meant it to be used to disapprove of militant atheists as they would religious extremists or whether they are saying it's all right to be a religious extremist but not a militant atheist. Humphrys just asks questions. Intelligent questions that believers and non-believers alike would and should be asking. He takes the neutral ground of an agnostic; he can't prove that there is no god, but he wants religious people to explain and prove what the god is that they are worshipping. His chapter on interviews with a rabbi,a an Anglican Archbishop, and a Muslim academic is worth reading carefully. The reader must judge for himself whether the answers given by these three learned men clarify the religious stand. I suspect most neutral people would be left skeptical.
http://www.amazon.com/God-We-Doubt-John-Humphrys/dp/0340951265/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2ZUCMKYHX4L98&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism by J. L. Schellenberg
http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Doubt-Justification-Religious-Skepticism/dp/080144554X/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I34IHAFCSS5DK4&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
Divine Hiddenness: New Essays Daniel Howard-Snyder (Editor), Paul Moser (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Hiddenness-Essays-Daniel-Howard-Snyder/dp/0521006104/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I28043A3AMFRKM&colid=34WLYCPYOOKUM
Divine Hiddenness And Human Reason (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) by J. L. Schellenberg (Author), Zainam Bahrani (Editor), Marc Van De Mieroop (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Hiddenness-Cornell-Studies-Philosophy-Religion/dp/0801473462/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IWLCGVV4BS5I0&colid=2CQDBZYQXUFB8
Wrestling with God: The Story of My Life
by Lloyd Geering (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-God-Story-My-Life/dp/1845400771/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2OB5W04KAYYDV&colid=2CQDBZYQXUFB8
Honest to God by John A. T. Robinson
http://www.amazon.com/Honest-God-John-T-Robinson/dp/0664224229/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1QSDJ84VMVD0M&colid=2CQDBZYQXUFB8
The Unknown God: Agnostic Essays (Continuum Compact) by Anthony Kenny (Author) For some years, Kenny was a Roman Catholic priest. he lost his faith and resigned from the priesthood. But, as this book demonstrates, he has never been able to let go of God and he continues to struggle with the intellectual problems of theism and the possibility of believing in God, especially in an intellectual climate dominated by Logical Positivism.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Agnostic-Essays-Continuum-Compact/dp/0826476341/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I4NKVBDSM8AUM&colid=DCTP3UDWLVBH
Who Knows?: A Study of Religious Consciousness by Raymond M. Smullyan (Author) From the author: 'Martin Gardner has left us a host of thought-provoking thoughts on religion (as well as other topics) in his book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, and I would like to share some of my own thoughts that his have provoked.' Philosophy as it should be done. Smullyan's writing and thinking in this book is witty, engaging, and subtle without being pretentious, dogmatic, and overly technical. we are most fortunate that this magician/logician should turn his attention to the greatest puzzles of all: Does God exist, what are God's attributes and can we, or at least some people, know God? Countless volumes have been written on these questions. I have sampled not even an insignificant fraction of such work, but I'd bet good money that you could travel a long way in those jungles before finding a book as lucid and as accessible as 'Who Knows?' Here is a book that manages, in relatively few pages and in a style that is consistently readable, to address provacatively and intelligently some of the central questions that men and women throughout time have pondered.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Knows-Study-Religious-Consciousness/dp/0253215749/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1QVDKI8GRVNXQ&colid=DCTP3UDWLVBH
30 comments:
I will also say that the same thing goes for anyone who understands the slightest bit of historiography and psychology. In historical studies there is always plenty of room for doubt, for even if all the available evidence points to one conclusion there is always the possibility that the evidence leading to a different conclusion did not survive, or was destroyed. And psychological studies shows convincingly that we believe many things based on irrational fears and hopes. The ONLY ANTIDOTE is science and evidence. And while scientists can still misread the evidence for personal reasons, it is still the only antidote to wishful thinking based upon irrational fears and hopes.
This is completely off topic, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
"Atheism Is Dead" is dead.
I'd give you a link, but don't have the time to learn how.
Just put your http business in front of atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
I love irony!
Here's a complete chronicle of the happenings with Will Hawthorne and Frank Walton, Why Frank has atheismsucks back, Why Will Quit What's going on at AtheismisDead etc...
It's the first 4 or 5 blog entries here:
Frank Walton Chronicle
Thanks for the “Heads Up” scaryjesus!
I see the Christian love is really flowing between Frank Walton and Will Hawthorne. It brought a tear to my eye when I read their post (attacking one another) and remembered the old Christian hymn: “And They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love”.
I noticed too that for a website entitled “Atheism is Death“, they only have 5 or 6 (now that Irish Farmer is back) full time apologetic writers while we “death atheists” have 13 or, better put, more than twice as many death atheists still alive and kicking!
But just as with Jesus, we atheists have been resurrected to never die again!
Because Christians NEVER do anything wrong...[/rolleyes]...yeah right McCaw. Or is it your logical fallacy that to be a "true Christian" the person has to NOT SIN EVER? Nice try, but that doesn't even pass the smell test. (and it's possible to argue with someone and it not have anything to do with whether you love the person. Does a child stop loving a parent if they argue in an "unloving" way? Srsly now plz.)
Whether atheism "lives" or "dies", I don't really care. SOMEONE has to experience the SITYS, I guess...
Many here argue that POE is evidence of a lack of a caring sovereign God, but I believe it is evidence of Y'shua's expression of a gracious God - He says to love our enemies and He is not a hypocrite - His grace allows people time to develope and mature a thirst and value for either the world or for a different way - - He doesn't ask us to do something He would not do Himself.
John has also argued that the absence of a commandment forbidding slave keeping is evidence of a lack of a god - But Y'shua approached mankind on a wholesale basis saying that we are all in need of being set free from captivity - to put into a place a law forbidding slavekeeping would be to presume that some are already free and Y'shua did not promote that idea. (Also, in Paul's writings he does condemn slavekeeping but also encourages those in bondage to keep from getting involved in the hatred that goes along with that occupation. An enlightened person places priority of spiritual freedom over physical freedom.)
You ask how does a believer know that which they claim to know? Through denial and hatred of the truth, I used to be hindered from connecting in constructive ways with others and inwardly, I was perishing although outwardly I was what some might call moral - there is still pain and sometimes rejection in the pursuit of reaching out to people, but now I know of a source of spiritual healing and I am growing more compassionate and caring towards others and a courageous lover of people. That to me is true knowledge and faith.
Thanks!
But Y'shua approached mankind on a wholesale basis saying that we are all in need of being set free from captivity - to put into a place a law forbidding slavekeeping would be to presume that some are already free and Y'shua did not promote that idea.
You seem to be imply that God needed to "dumb-down" his laws so they could be comprehended by his own creation. If God is omnipotent, would it not follow he could have found a way to differentiate between being physically free and spiritually free?
For example, God had no problem differentiating between spiritual death and physical death, why should slavery be any different?
Nor did Y'shua seem to have a problem promoting the Israelites as his chosen people. This included laws regarding foreign vs. Israelite slaves. Not exactly what I'd conceder "approach[ing] mankind on a wholesale basis".
Hi Scott - You wrote: "You seem to be imply that God needed to "dumb-down" his laws so they could be comprehended by his own creation."
Do you view grace as a contemptible weakness? As a dumbing down? As for myself, I am not likely to embrace something for which I hold in contempt. I no longer view grace as a dumbing down process.
You also said, "he could have found a way to differentiate between being physically free and spiritually free?" It's pretty self evident that we do not share the same perspective.
Also, how do you view "chosen people"? As a position of entitlement? servanthood?
Thanks!
Epistemology is a great topic that atheist often overlook. I have yet to hear an internally consistent approach to knowledge from a materialistic perspective.
The Christian world view is the only one that saves knowledge.
Yeah...
Do you view grace as a contemptible weakness? As a dumbing down? As for myself, I am not likely to embrace something for which I hold in contempt. I no longer view grace as a dumbing down process.
I view the idea that God couldn't denounce slavery because he couldn't find a way to differentiate between being physically free and spiritually free as a very unlikely unlikely weakness, as God is supposedly omnipotent and the creator of human beings.
You also said, "he could have found a way to differentiate between being physically free and spiritually free?" It's pretty self evident that we do not share the same perspective.
Of course we don't. I don't need to claim that God is both infinite and finite in an attempt to explain obvious cultural influences found in the Bible.
Also, how do you view "chosen people"? As a position of entitlement? servanthood?
I view a "chosen people" as unnecessary part of a perfect being's plan. In contrast, it's a common part of human cultures, relations and societies. As such, Y'shua appears to be invented as a tribal protector, not a being of infinite knowledge.
Scott, thanks for sharing your perspective - it is similar to one that I once held to but will never embrace again. The best to you,
3 M
Hey John, I hope you have been well. I've been meaning to ask you, and this seems like an appropriate occasion, your opinion on Plantinga's epistemological project. Cheers.
I don't have the time right now, but Plantinga's whole project is an exercise that shows nothing. He only can show at best that if Christianity is true then he's correct. But that conditional says absolutely nothing about whether or not Christianity is true, and he admits it.
That's an interesting list of books. I haven''t read them, but it would be useful to point someone towards when the person is too confident in their beliefs.
Anyway, religious or not, we all too often label beliefs as knowledge. Of course, philosophers still argue over when the label knowledge is appropriate. Anyway, I think it is usually helpful to say, "I believe..." rather than "I know..."
For those of you who like discussing epistemology and when the label 'knowledge' is appropriate, I invite you to join my Philosophy Forums.
I agree that he does not show Christianity to be true. But he does do more than nothing.
1. He gives a theory of knowledge where Christianity and theism are properly basic.
2. He argues, I think successfully, that de jure objections assume de facto objections.
3. He responds to three major rebutting defeaters of Christianity.
I'm mostly interested if you think he is successful regarding (2). No hurry on this, just curious what you think.
b
Scott, thanks for sharing your perspective - it is similar to one that I once held to but will never embrace again.
The idea that God is limited, yet also unlimited is one of many reasons I find it difficult to believe the claim that God exists.
In this case, I see four options...
01. God is finite. He cannot clearly communicate the difference between physical freedom and spiritual freedom to human beings he supposedly created.
02. God is infinite, but he is unwilling to communicate the difference in this particular case.
03. God did not explicitly denounce slavery because he does not disapprove of it.
04. God does not exist.
Is there an option here that I missed? (feel free to 'fill in the blank' with your own option)
One option I removed from this list is that God has the ability to communicate the difference, but he could not because it would conflict with some other unknown factor. I removed this option because it was effectively the same as #2. That is, If God is omnipotent, nothing is necessary for God.
If, for the sake of argument, we assume that God was unable to communicate the difference (X) without causing a negative effect on some other unknown factor (Y), using the word 'cannot' appears incorrect. God does not NEED Y to occur, he WANTS Y to occur.
Therefore, God is unwilling to do X at the expense of Y.
Scott, it seems as though you are a very thoughtful person, like the other writers here, who has devoted some time to the endeavor of trying to figure out and debunk this whole "god" thing. I had tried to reduce God into a malleable piece of formulaic pablum, but failed and became frustrated. I am grateful for that because I didn't realize that a "god" that could be manipulated by people is an idol.
I never considered learning to trust.
At any rate, the best to you, Scott!
M3,
Thanks for your sincere response.
Could I surmise your position as not having an explanation for the apparent contradiction of God infinite and finite nature, but trusting that one exists?
For me, trust is something earned. It is sustained by actions and outcomes that reflect trustworthiness. This is not to say that trust does not require risk or faith, but it is certainly not without reasonably clear feedback which provides strong guidance going forward.
How has God given you a reason to trust him? If so, are these reasons something that could have only come from God? Could the act of perceiving something as coming from God give them a "special" meaning they would not hold otherwise?
Or could it be trusting God "works" best for you, which somehow reconciles this apparent contradiction in God's nature?
To answer this contradiction with trust is to say God is asking us to trust that he want's us to trust him. God requires us to have faith that he makes requirements of us.
For God to actually play a role in our past, present and future, he must have specific attributes. And these same attributes would give him knowledge of how this contradiction would be perceived by myself and others. Yet he does not address it.
If we were in a situation where there was no time to explain or there were other logical constraints, I could see how this might be asked of us. But we're talking an all powerful, all knowing being. God does not say, "Look, I know this doesn't make sense, but I have a really good reason. You'll just have to trust me." Instead, we're the ones who have come to these conclusions in the vacuum left by God.
In short, I find it difficult to trust a God who is not only has a contradiction in his nature, but does not even acknowledge the fact that said contradiction exists. If God is not aware of this issue, then I have difficulty trusting he is aware of or is capable of addressing other pressing issues which theism attributes to God.
Take care,
Hi Scott - your questions and observations are heartfelt and I appreciate them.
I don't feel enabled to address all your concerns but I instead present what I've grown to know by faith as compared to what I've experienced not believing in a loving God.
You wrote: "For me, trust is something earned. It is sustained by actions and outcomes that reflect trustworthiness. This is not to say that trust does not require risk or faith, but it is certainly not without reasonably clear feedback which provides strong guidance going forward."
I invite you to consider that trust is a practice that can lead us toward valuing and depending upon the seen world or connecting with faithfulness (a practice of progressively relinquishing fight or flight inclinations to take up a valuable alternative way of relating). I had placed more value and dependency (trust)upon seen circumstances, other people and outcomes rather than maturing inner peace amidst what I would have previously viewed as impossible situations- as a result I appeared great on the outside but inwardly I was perishing - not immediately, but given enough distressful circumstances, I grew more and more frustrated and devalued, more co-opted into justifying throwing stones at others. My desire of a god was that he produce something that Jesus never advocated, so in essence, my goals were antagonistic towards Him and ultimately, myself and others. My expectations and priorities were not life giving but shrunk my capacity to be compassionate. I know now that what He values is that I increase my capacity to love people - I thought I was good at that but I was an enabler and involved in victim/victimizer pursuits - habits that do not fit through the gates of paradise. That is what Y'shua is communicating - a turning away from fear to courageous loving. It takes trust in better realm to turn one's cheek away from mistreatment without being consumed by abuse. If believing in leprechauns or the blessed little Flying Spaghetti Monster can advocate courageous love of God and others, then that is not a false idol.
I confess that I lack the long term religious and scriptural indoctrination that many here have endured and I have only a small experience with that. I have a short-term experience and suffered for it. I think Y'shua was spot on when He said that those proclaiming to know god and portraying him as a demanding heirarchal deity with a measuring stick for superior/inferior judgements, were the sons of hell - but Y'shua forgave even them, so I will not add a stone to their burden.
Again, the best to you, Scott.
3M
Hello again, Scott - I typed a response to your last comment but fear that it may have dissipated into the blogosphere -
At any rate, I enjoy the ongoing dialogue. I apologize, but to me, explaining faith is similar to a situation that an art professor once shared with me - my art instructor had a student who was blind. One day the lesson included a teaching about perspective. Now, my professor was "blind" to the fact that this blind student had no clue that as we view things from a distance, objects begin to appear smaller. Until the instructor realized his own sensitivity, he was unable to teach the student about perspective.
The best way I can describe the God I have come to trust is this way - imagine power without indictiment and arrogance - without shame and blame-
You mentioned about developing trust, and how it is a practice that is built on a reasonable outcome or expectation. I had practiced trusting but in the world and my own abilities - trust is the practice of reliance, value and dependence upon something - my focus and goal was on seen circumstances and other people rather than on inner peace in the midst of dark circumstances - in essence I had developed a cooperation and trust/value system with the world and had grown to justify throwing stones at others. Y'shua's goal is antagonistic towards that kind of trust - His Way is that we grow to increase our capacity towards courageous love without perishing or being coopted into mistreatment and abusiveness. By faith, I have grown to trust and to relinquish my fight or flight disposition for a more valuable acquisition - the kingdom of heaven within. I am learning to abandon enabling, victim/victimizer roles to take up faithfulness which teaches a different way of perceiving and relating to one another. My life of faith is not without suffering but it is no longer in vain - I no longer cooperate or promote generational grudges as I have experienced that the source of healing is at hand.
At any rate, Scott, the best to you once again - take care.
3M
M3,
It appears that your views on compassion and "suffering" are similar to the philosophical views I have adopted from Zen Buddhism. However, I do not subscribe to the idea of reincarnation, karmic matter or nirvana.
I'm drawn to Zen because of it's practical nature and it's focus on being present in the here and know. The idea is if we are really paying attention, the path we should take will be obvious and clear. Suffering is caused by our desire to see things as we want to see them, instead of how they really are. We struggle to hold what was never ours in the first place. We deny the impermanence of everything around us.
Subsequently, one of Zen's goals is to refrain from taking actions or holding views that distract or separate you from what's really going on. This includes consuming substances, such as alcohol or drugs, (although I will have a glass of wine with dinner or a single drink in a social setting) being dishonest with yourself or others and taking actions without considering it's effect on the whole. Compassion is advocated because when we help someone else, we help everyone including ourselves. It's merely common sense.
The Buddha is attributed to have said...
You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.
Also...
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
The compassion you speak of does not require "faith" because it's practical and we can see it's effects with our own eyes. We just need to look. Our minds are often so cluttered by memes, instincts, culture, ego and tradition that we cannot see it.
For me, the idea that truth can only revealed though the mind of God is part of the reason we suffer. It blinds us from the truth that is all around us. Truth can be found everywhere because, well, it is everywhere. And it implies we are not worthy or capable without some external, supernatural being.
As such, the apparent contradiction of God's infinite and finite nature is not a threat to truth which needs to be denied or ignored, because truth cannot be destroyed or threatened. It has no source or no location. Nor is it necessary to assume there must be some "good reason" why God could not clearly discern between physical and spiritual freedom because, otherwise, God might become implausible. In fact, I think they idea that truth needs to be protected is a form of suffering.
That which is "true" about "God" will be self evident - regardless if he is a divine, supernatural being or a construct designed to illustrate philosophical and moral views of an ancient people. Just as the goal to "increase our capacity towards courageous love without perishing or being coopted into mistreatment and abusiveness." is self evident and need not come from some transcendent being.
We should not need a supernatural spokesperson to mandate, advocate or justify truth. Truth can, and should, speak for itself.
Regardless of our different perspectives, I'm glad you've learned to identify and abandon enabling / victim / victimizer roles. They can be difficult to detect and cause suffering for everyone involved.
Take care....
Hi Scott! Thanks so much for sharing about Buddhism. I really enjoy the company of people who practice that.
I've noticed something about spiritual and religious practices - my experience was one of a more passive, maintain-the-status-quo peacekeeper attitude rather than a proactive, captive-set-free from the "don't do this", "don't do that" attitude.
Another difference for me in faith is that there is a spiritual relationship available with a God Who is a Father - that is what proved to be both the most practical and powerful paradigm shift for me - I had to learn about a caring and tender intimate authority. I hadn't experienced that before.
At any rate, thanks once again for telling of your personal beliefs and experiences - I appreciate it, Scott!
3M
Just as a follow up to my last post...
Please note were I said...
The Buddha is attributed to have said...
I have no investment in the Buddha having actually existed or having said these words.
Even if the the man known as The Buddha never really existed, or never actually said these things, they would still be just as true or false as if he really did exist or he really did say them.
We can know this because after observation and a analysis, we will either find they are true or they are not true.
While this is somewhat circular, we can look for other confirming sources. We can use things such as the scientific method and Bayesian analysis to adjust for our own biases and presuppositions.
Hi Scott - to my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Buddha made no promise of an eternal and loving God. Without such a promise, if I have found that if I turn my other cheek or try to love those who mistreat me, I am just opening myself up to abuse.
Hello M3,
Without such a promise, if I have found that if I turn my other cheek or try to love those who mistreat me, I am just opening myself up to abuse.
I'm somewhat confused by this statement. Can you clarify?
For example, one interpretation could be that you find a specific situation abusive if God does not exist, but that same situation somehow becomes non-abusive if God does exist. It seems to me the situation is either abusive or it is not.
Since I do not know your situation I'm going hypothetical here....
While the idea of a loving, eternal God may have helped someone realize they do not deserve to be abused or help identify an abusive situation that may have gone unnoticed otherwise, the key here is that the situation has been identified and classified as abusive, which is has become self-evident. Even If this God had been an illusion, the assessment of the situation is still valid and does not somehow become non-abusive again.
The same could be said in reverse. If the idea of a loving God helps you see the value of helping people, even though they reject that help or may even act maliciously in return, this value has been revealed to you and accept it as truth. The fact that this God may have simply been a construct designed to illustrate the value of helping others is irrelevant. The cat is out of the bag. The genie is out of the bottle.
Either you can truly see the value of helping others while expecting nothing in return or you cannot. You don't need an omnipotent being to tell you one way or the other.
However, being hypothetical here again, one could use the idea of a loving, eternal God to justify staying in an abusive relationship. The idea that the abuse one receives is somehow part of God's plan and has some mysterious purpose may appear comforting, but it could be covering up a real problem. This is one of the dangers of assuming one can know the mind of God.
Take care...
Hi Scott -
Alas, my failure to convey the meaning of the gospel continues to manifest itself through my writings :-( - woeful and pitiful indeed! I seem to have given rise to a query that is not directed towards what I intended - I concede defeat in articulating accurately here.
Needless to say, I recognize and appreciate your seeking to understand - I'm grateful for the kindnesses expressed by you.
The best to you, Scott!
3M
M3,
Here's one possible interpretation I left out of my last post because I don't think you really believe it.
Since God exists and gives us eternal life, you see helping others without expecting anything is return as valuable. However, if God really does not exist, then helping others without expecting anything in return would somehow become non-valuable since we would eventually cease to exist.
Instead, I'm guessing you have observed real benefits from helping others without expecting anything in return. As such, you would likely say compassion would have value regardless if we lived lived forever, 80 years, or even only one day.
Could it be that your belief in God, who is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient, justifies a view you already held, or has shown you a view which you now observably find true?
If we could go back in time and found that the resurrection did not occur, would you cease to find compassion valuable?
Because I'm having difficulty believing that you'd think compassion would not have value if we did not live eternally. Nor do I think you advocate compassion to avoid eternal punishment.
If anything, I think compassion has value because we have physical needs and eventual die. Nor would compassion be necessary in heaven, since it is said all of our needs would be met and there would be no disease.
As such, the need to keep God from becoming implausible by assuming he is both infinite and finite seems to be an attempt to avoid or reduce cognitive dissonance.
Take care...
Hi Scott - Although I don't think "being good for goodness sake" is really the good news or news that saves us, I am impressed with the thoughtfulness and care expressed in your input.
I do not believe God's spirit can be completely conveyed through words, but words can prove inspirational towards such. I think there's something in scripture whereby (it may have been Paul) someone said something about "being good for goodness sake" - something like, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, we are to be pitied more than anyone. I know it is a lot of perishing to be good for the sake of goodness - I needed to be sustained and bonded in my weakest and most immature state before I could mature towards faith. Faith is an expression of love - if I don't have love then I have conditions - reasons to justify rejecting and hurting others. People ususally want to punish someone (not save someone) when they've been hurt. Fellowship in faith is supposed to be a safe community whereby people share and bring their confessions of weaknesses and fallibilities to healing light - not a place for human heirarchy and power pursuits. Jesus acknowledged the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but with love, not indictment. This is the shift I needed to experience before I could "see" Y'shua. I needed love, not an impersonal legal or religious document, practice, etc. etc.
I can act moral and do altruistic deeds, but without love, I perish within.
Thanks once again Scott - take care!
Just wanted to chime in...
Atheismisdead is NOT dead. We just had a little hicup and most of us just got finished with finals.
I posted a new topic about a day ago.
M3 wrote: "Faith is an expression of love - if I don't have love then I have conditions - reasons to justify rejecting and hurting others."
So, If I understand you correctly, you must have faith that God exists to be unconditionally compassionate. If your belief in the existence of God was contingent (depends on conditions), then these conditions would somehow prevent you from being unconditionally compassionate to others.
Am I getting close?
This seems to contradict God's position in regards to human beings. God has conditions. Since God is said to be omniscient, he cannot have faith in us or trust us. Why would God expect mere mortals to do something he himself appears unwilling or unable to do?
And, we're still left with the following..
Unconditional compassion requires faith that God exits in a specific form. This includes "assuming" God must have had a good reason for not denouncing slavery. That is, you think compassion is, in part, conditional on the assumption that God had a "good reason."
We seem to be going around in circles.
Specifically, why do you need to think God had a reason, if you believe in him unconditionally? Instead, one would think God would not need to hold any specific views or do anything. Nor would you have conditions on believing other Gods.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but you're use of the word unconditional seems to be, well, conditional.
On the other hand, one might assume the existence of God provides a socially acceptable, transcendent source for justifying "unconditional" compassion, which is a behavior that theists value, want or need to exhibit.
Take care.....
Post a Comment