Insightful, pro-theist book?

[Haruko]

I have read some books that argue in defense of atheism (either directly (i.e.--The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Sense And Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier), or by showing the nonsense of superstition in general and arguing the soundness of natural explanation (i.e.--The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan, The Blind Watchmaker: How The Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins), etc), but none in defense of theism. I have been interested in changing that latter fact for some time now. I am and have long been a convinced atheist, but I would, nonetheless, like to read a well-argued book (or several) in defense of theism, but I don't know of any. The closest I have gotten to what I consider an insightful, pro-theist book was actually a pro-Deist book: Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason (Part 1 & 2).

I did my own searching and found such books as Strobel's A Case For Christ and C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity. From what I've been reading by reviewers, neither sound impressive. The latter author seems like someone who thinks he knew what it was like to be an atheist and who, though having been a good fantasy writer, sucks when it comes to defending theism.

[Covenant]

I have read some books that argue in defense of atheism (either directly (i.e.--The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Sense And Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier), or by showing the nonsense of superstition in general and arguing the soundness of natural explanation (i.e.--The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan, The Blind Watchmaker: How The Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins), etc), but none in defense of theism. I have been interested in changing that latter fact for some time now. I am and have long been a convinced atheist, but I would, nonetheless, like to read a well-argued book (or several) in defense of theism, but I don't know of any. The closest I have gotten to what I consider an insightful, pro-theist book was actually a pro-Deist book: Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason (Part 1 & 2).

I did my own searching and found such books as Strobel's A Case For Christ and C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity. From what I've been reading by reviewers, neither sound impressive. The latter author seems like someone who thinks he knew what it was like to be an atheist and who, though having been a good fantasy writer, sucks when it comes to defending theism.

Well... you need to define what you mean by insightful. There's a problem with the idea of an insightful theist book mostly because there's a degree of insight lacking by default where matters of faith are concerned. The most intelligent person writing in defense of God would only be able to poist emotional reasons for belief rather than factual evidence for it. You're more likely to run into people who believe in a cosmic deist entity that exists outside the realm of time and three dimensional space.

I would hardly be able to call this insight, I'd call it creative fiction. Looking for ways to shoehorn God into a system that does not require him seems rather uninsightful. If you mean a well-written defense of an intelligent creator to the Universe, that's a more specific topic. But of theism?

Even if you could prove that some thing did infact create the universe on purpose, this doesn't mean it was done in any order. A being that lights the spark of a universe and takes no hand in it's formation is not a god, it's just a cause to an effect. Worshipping something like that is as foolish as worshipping rain. Unless there's a creator force that deliberately made the universe in definate of natural science, contrived a structure from that chaos in a way that was outside the realm of physics, and has taken an active hand in our affairs and continues to care about us in any way that extends beyond mere tinkering, and that there is indeed life after death and a grand scheme to it all... well then at best you have an intelligent alien and at worse just raw physics and no creator.

I'm not sure what insight they can have that would give them the idea that they have a good reason to think otherwise, especially given our current state of affairs, but I think you'd have more luck looking for an honest defense of faith on SPECIFIC issues or the defense of a cosmic originator rather than of God the player of SIM Earth.

[Haruko]

Ah, thanks for pointing all that out for me.

If you mean a well-written defense of an intelligent creator to the Universe, that's a more specific topic. But of theism?

I'm not sure what insight they can have that would give them the idea that they have a good reason to think otherwise, especially given our current state of affairs, but I think you'd have more luck looking for an honest defense of faith on SPECIFIC issues or the defense of a cosmic originator rather than of God the player of SIM Earth.

OK, I reform my request, then, on specific issues of a theistic view. Even though they may be wrong, perhaps there'd be "insight", or worthwhile points and arguments made, whether helping the overall case or standing as a good point all its own.

[Covenant]

It's certainly not a foolish thing to ask about, but coming from the folks around here, we're not going to find dissertations on the 'intelligently designed' nature of an eye or the balanced constants of the universe as signs of a God, let alone as insightful. Not that there isn't insight at work from their end of things, but from a sciencey point of view a lot of the major breakthroughs in theistic theory are just new ways of explaining away percieved phenomena. Like how people have gone from believing man was zapped into being to having been tricked into thinking he came from apes, to the modern idea that God slowly shaped humanity into what it was, and so on.

I might be wrong but I can't think of many areas outside the realm of strictly theistic arguments (like about the purpose of life and such, things that they invent and then argue about the way we argue about power levels of turbolasers) that have really been incisive recently.

There is, however, a new book out you might find that fits your new criteria:

Deepak Chopra's Life After Death: The Burden of Proof. I don't know much about the book, I just know it exists. My brother, who is currently a liberal arts major taking such classes as Eastern Philosphy... well, he seems to like it, so I suppose if you're looking for mysticism palatable to those with a basis in reality, this might be an engaging read.

You may also want to look into The Seven Mysteries of Life, which advances absolutely no strict theology that I can make out but does treat life itself in all it's scientific reality as something deserving of great respect and reverence. It's not science as religion, it's just taking some joy from the idea that life really is such an amazingly grand thing to be apart of, even in the most mundane senses. I can speak for this one, but not the Chopra one.

[CorSec]

If you're more interested in Christian flavored theism, two authors that spring to mind are John Shelby Spong and Tony Campolo.

I can't give even a brief review of any of their work. But by word of mouth both are both are considered "liberal" Christians.

[Darth Wong]

One of the best books on the matter is supposedly Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I read it myself and I could only conclude that Christians are too immersed in their assumptions to realize that non-Christians don't share them. To say that it didn't make a good argument would be a gigantic understatement; it was a complete joke. It used idiotic pseudo-logic like "if everyone shares certain moral values, then there is absolute morality, therefore ... Jesus."

[Anguirus]

I don't get Mere Christianity either. I suspect it is recognized for what it is--a book written by an intelligent atheist-turned-theist--rather than for its actual arguments.

I don't think it could convert anyone who didn't know shit about Christianity, but it can and has made ex-Christian atheists jump back the other way.

Strobel's just blatantly full of shit. At least Lewis can write.

[Darth Wong]

I don't get Mere Christianity either. I suspect it is recognized for what it is--a book written by an intelligent atheist-turned-theist--rather than for its actual arguments.

I don't think it could convert anyone who didn't know shit about Christianity, but it can and has made ex-Christian atheists jump back the other way.

Wasn't CS Lewis himself a lapsed Christian? I suspect most lapsed Christians aren't really atheists; they're just cynical Christians. Most of them still harbour the belief on some level, which is why these terrible arguments (or the right trauma) will actually convince them to come back.

[Phillip Hone]

I read acouple of C.S Lewis books awhile ago. The Screwtape Letters, Miracles, and parts of mere Christianity. IMHO, C.S Lewis seems to rely pretty heavily on assumptions and circular reasoning.

[Phillip Hone]

Edit: In Miracles, I think that one of his arguments sounded like this:

1) Super natural miracles have occured
2) Therefore an active superal natural power must exist
3) Since an active super natural power exists, it must preform miracles.

[Darth Wong]

Edit: In Miracles, I think that one of his arguments sounded like this:

1) Super natural miracles have occured
2) Therefore an active superal natural power must exist
3) Since an active super natural power exists, it must preform miracles.

I love the way Christians prove that something is supernatural. Their logic works like this:

1) I don't understand it.
2) The universe is incapable of doing things I don't understand, because I understand everything about the universe.
3) Therefore, the universe could not have done this.
4) Therefore, something outside the universe must have done this.
5) Therefore ... Jesus.

Of course, they never come out and state #2; it's a classic example of the suppressed premise fallacy.

[TithonusSyndrome]

My favorite C.S. Lewis "argument" was one I heard on some PBS special that sought to illustrate the battle between theism and atheist as a showdown between Lewis and Freud. For every want, Lewis states, there is a satisfaction, and since every man wants to know God, there is therefore a God out there just waiting for you to get to know him. Eee---yeah...

[Covenant]

Edit: In Miracles, I think that one of his arguments sounded like this:

1) Super natural miracles have occured
2) Therefore an active superal natural power must exist
3) Since an active super natural power exists, it must preform miracles.

I love the way Christians prove that something is supernatural. Their logic works like this:

1) I don't understand it.
2) The universe is incapable of doing things I don't understand, because I understand everything about the universe.
3) Therefore, the universe could not have done this.
4) Therefore, something outside the universe must have done this.
5) Therefore ... Jesus.

Of course, they never come out and state #2; it's a classic example of the suppressed premise fallacy.

It gets one better with the idea that God is unknowable and beyond human comprehension, works in mysterious and subtle ways and such... while still reserving the capacity to be angry about abstract moral problems of his own worship such as gay marriage and abortion, and his history in direct intervention via death and destruction of humanity at a global scale.

They choose not to understand Science or God by refusing any evidence about anything whatsoever. If they read their textbooks or their scripture they would have one of two mindsets about the world, one based on fact and the other based on faith. Instead they tread the true middle path of ignorance and are neither faithful to their myths nor knowledgeable to their reality. They live in a self-constructed world where nothing can ever really be known and what we see is a temporary illusion between states of higher understanding, and anything that seems concrete is either too complex to understand or a trick of higher powers.

It's astounding.

[Surlethe]

One of the best books on the matter is supposedly Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I read it myself and I could only conclude that Christians are too immersed in their assumptions to realize that non-Christians don't share them.

It strikes me that apologism is more to convince Christians that they're right than to convince atheists that they're wrong. After all, for most of Christian history, Christianity has been dominant and non-Christians have been, at best, tolerant; therefore, the target audience for apologists is not non-Christians but rather Christians themselves.

Proselytizing occurs by repeating the premises of the arguments over and over and over ad nauseam, playing on local superstitions, until people have the basic, unquestioned Christian doctrines drilled into them. Then you can pull the apologism out; it doesn't work the other way 'round.

[Vaporous]

Wasn't CS Lewis himself a lapsed Christian? I suspect most lapsed Christians aren't really atheists; they're just cynical Christians. Most of them still harbour the belief on some level, which is why these terrible arguments (or the right trauma) will actually convince them to come back.

Pretty much. As someone who bought into Lewis for a while, I can tell you that its very effective on the half convinced and the almost-theres. One of the reviews on my copy of Mere actually says "A great book for the good person who has decided to become a Christian but finds their intellect in the way."

The power of Lewis is in the analogies, the imagery, and the high literary quality of the works. To be blunt, he was an honestly motivated bullshit artist who was good at what he did. I still find Screwtape to be a great read.

[kheegster]

One of the best books on the matter is supposedly Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I read it myself and I could only conclude that Christians are too immersed in their assumptions to realize that non-Christians don't share them. To say that it didn't make a good argument would be a gigantic understatement; it was a complete joke. It used idiotic pseudo-logic like "if everyone shares certain moral values, then there is absolute morality, therefore ... Jesus."

A friend lent me that book when I was at a stage of my life when I was exploring my options as far as faith is concerned. I got to about 10 pages and stopped reading there because I was just disagreeing with him at every single of his arguments.

[Battlehymn Republic]

How is G.K. Chesterton perceived around here?

[Darth Wong]

Pretty much. As someone who bought into Lewis for a while, I can tell you that its very effective on the half convinced and the almost-theres. One of the reviews on my copy of Mere actually says "A great book for the good person who has decided to become a Christian but finds their intellect in the way."

The power of Lewis is in the analogies, the imagery, and the high literary quality of the works. To be blunt, he was an honestly motivated bullshit artist who was good at what he did. I still find Screwtape to be a great read.

I find that Christian apologists use analogies in a totally different way than debaters do. A debater will use an analogy to say "Let's test your logic by applying it to this other situation." But a Christian apologist uses an analogy to say "Let's describe this idea in parable form. This will somehow magically prove that it's true".

[K. A. Pital]

I personally find Lewis' concepts all too far from Christianity. He subscribes to "Dao" and other Force-like stuff that any fundie Christian would shrug off.

[Rye]

I've not read Lewis' book, so I won't comment on it. I've read chunks of Strobel's work, and while his stuff still suffers from the same old fallacies, he really pads them out with an asston of research. Credit where it's due, I probably couldn't be bothered putting that much effort into an atheistic argument book.

As for anything pro-theistic, hmmm, I'm really coming up empty. I suppose Spinoza and the other pantheists are as close to "proper theism" as can be defended; they identify nature with God himself and thus end up essentially as atheists from the point of view theistic philosophers of the time, but they considered themselves theistic.

Epicurus wrote from the perspective that the gods existed, but they didn't do miracles and they didn't interact with human society, which was a minority view at the time.

[Darwin]

1: Place faith in a mythical being.

2: ...

3: Profi..er, Jesus!