Clever or interesting argument from the other side?

[Proinsias]

A friend sent me this clip of Richard Dawkins a few days ago, which I remember seeing some time ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EphcacBt-Mk

Hoping I could turn the question on the forum, and perhaps get a better answer.

J.L Mackie's The Miracle of Theism has long been for me the only book I can think of when someone wants to read about atheism, not a cast iron case but a nice book. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and some others I can't remember feel more like annoyed rants in comparison.

Since arriving here I've read some good Christian stuff like Ravi, C S Lewis, Aquinas & Augustine to name a few but wondering if anyone has any good recommendations from the other side of the fence? It's been a while since I started reading anything pro-athiest and finished it.

Are there any atheists out there writing that Christians are listening to beyond arming themselves for apologetics?

[Byblos]

A friend sent me this clip of Richard Dawkins a few days ago, which I remember seeing some time ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EphcacBt-Mk

Hoping I could turn the question on the forum, and perhaps get a better answer.

J.L Mackie's The Miracle of Theism has long been for me the only book I can think of when someone wants to read about atheism, not a cast iron case but a nice book. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and some others I can't remember feel more like annoyed rants in comparison.

Since arriving here I've read some good Christian stuff like Ravi, C S Lewis, Aquinas & Augustine to name a few but wondering if anyone has any good recommendations from the other side of the fence? It's been a while since I started reading anything pro-athiest and finished it.

Are there any atheists out there writing that Christians are listening to beyond arming themselves for apologetics?

Dawkins is such an ignorant, smug tool.

Of the 2 relevant disciplines, metaphysics and science, I haven't seen anything lately on the former, perhaps due to the resurgence of classical philosophy. Of the latter, the only thing I could think of is Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design. But even that can very easily be metaphysically debunked.

[PaulSacramento]

Don't confuse atheism for naturalism.
Most books trying to "explain" atheism are merely attempts to justify naturalism.
You really don't need a book to justify atheism, it is quite simply, not believing in god(s) because there is no direct evidence for their existence.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Maybe this might help, sorry couldn't help it.

[Proinsias]

Thanks guys, I think I'll pass on Hawking. Much like Dawkins I loved his early pop science books but ventures into philosophy or theology are cringe worthy.

Paul, I see what you're saying but in my experience it's as much about tearing up Abrahamic theism as it is justifying naturalism.

[Byblos]

Thanks guys, I think I'll pass on Hawking. Much like Dawkins I loved his early pop science books but ventures into philosophy or theology are cringe worthy.

Paul, I see what you're saying but in my experience it's as much about tearing up Abrahamic theism as it is justifying naturalism.

And I have yet to see an argument that comes even close to accomplishing either.

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks guys, I think I'll pass on Hawking. Much like Dawkins I loved his early pop science books but ventures into philosophy or theology are cringe worthy.

Paul, I see what you're saying but in my experience it's as much about tearing up Abrahamic theism as it is justifying naturalism.

If one truly wants to "tear up" Abrahmaic theism ( and it's off-shoots) then a good place to start would be correct understanding of them and in that regard, the vast majority of "militant atheist" fail miserably since they tend to have, at best, "weak sunday school theology".

[Beanybag]

Naturalism is at least part true. It's quite sound that many things operate naturally. The question is one of completeness. Naturalists say its complete, and that the loose ends will at some point be explained naturally since nothing has not been explained naturally (argument ex nihilo). Others say it can't account for many things (qualia, spirit). I'm content to remain undecided on the whole thing.

[1over137]

Thanks guys, I think I'll pass on Hawking. Much like Dawkins I loved his early pop science books but ventures into philosophy or theology are cringe worthy.

Paul, I see what you're saying but in my experience it's as much about tearing up Abrahamic theism as it is justifying naturalism.

I would try Richard Feynman. He wrote "The meaning of it all" and he has also some stuff about his view on religion on YouTube.

Here is something from him: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =90#p98435

[Beanybag]

Stephen Hawking is actually quite an able philosopher, but he approaches it from science and his philosophy really only speaks to the ontology of science. The philosophical view of science is a confusing one, with many different points of view on it. It's hard to account for why science works, we mostly only know that it does indeed work. What it says about our world that it works and how much science can actually tell us is still an interesting debate.

[Icthus]

Stephen Hawking is actually quite an able philosopher, but he approaches it from science and his philosophy really only speaks to the ontology of science. The philosophical view of science is a confusing one, with many different points of view on it. It's hard to account for why science works, we mostly only know that it does indeed work. What it says about our world that it works and how much science can actually tell us is still an interesting debate.

I have to disagree. Hawking is an amateur philosopher, and he makes quite a few mistakes in his writings that a competent one wouldn't. Anyone who can abide having the claim "philosophy is dead" in a book baring his or her name has, in my opinion, forfeited all claim to understanding philosophy. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant and courageous man and one of the world's greatest scientists, but a philosopher he is not.

[Beanybag]

Stephen Hawking is actually quite an able philosopher, but he approaches it from science and his philosophy really only speaks to the ontology of science. The philosophical view of science is a confusing one, with many different points of view on it. It's hard to account for why science works, we mostly only know that it does indeed work. What it says about our world that it works and how much science can actually tell us is still an interesting debate.

I have to disagree. Hawking is an amateur philosopher, and he makes quite a few mistakes in his writings that a competent one wouldn't. Anyone who can abide having the claim "philosophy is dead" in a book baring his or her name has, in my opinion, forfeited all claim to understanding philosophy. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant and courageous man and one of the world's greatest scientists, but a philosopher he is not.

Yes, yes, he makes proud and bold claims - but read what he writes and you'll find good philosophy. Arrogant and presumptuous on the surface but thoughtful and insightful deeper down.

[Proinsias]

If one truly wants to "tear up" Abrahmaic theism ( and it's off-shoots) then a good place to start would be correct understanding of them and in that regard, the vast majority of "militant atheist" fail miserably since they tend to have, at best, "weak sunday school theology".

I was kinda hoping to avoid wading through the vast majority, hence the thread!
1over137 - Thanks, had a quick look over some of Feynman's stuff on youtube, looks interesting. Think I'll hunt down that book soon.

[1over137]

1over137 - Thanks, had a quick look over some of Feynman's stuff on youtube, looks interesting. Think I'll hunt down that book soon.

Let's then discuss Feynman's stuff afterwards. (I always wanted to discuss his stuff.)

[Icthus]

Stephen Hawking is actually quite an able philosopher, but he approaches it from science and his philosophy really only speaks to the ontology of science. The philosophical view of science is a confusing one, with many different points of view on it. It's hard to account for why science works, we mostly only know that it does indeed work. What it says about our world that it works and how much science can actually tell us is still an interesting debate.

I have to disagree. Hawking is an amateur philosopher, and he makes quite a few mistakes in his writings that a competent one wouldn't. Anyone who can abide having the claim "philosophy is dead" in a book baring his or her name has, in my opinion, forfeited all claim to understanding philosophy. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant and courageous man and one of the world's greatest scientists, but a philosopher he is not.

Yes, yes, he makes proud and bold claims - but read what he writes and you'll find good philosophy. Arrogant and presumptuous on the surface but thoughtful and insightful deeper down.

I won't deny that he's thoughtful or clever, or even insightful, but he's rather lacking in nuance. He grapples with some heavy issues, and for a non-philosopher, he does fairly well (and is quite readable), but philosophy isn't something you can just pick up and roll with, even if you're as clever as he is. His arrogance really hurts him in places, especially when he waxes philosophical without a good grasp of the debate he's entering. He's always an interesting read, but I wouldn't take the majority his metaphysical musings too seriously as philosophy, though he's far better than a lot of the scientists who have been entering the arena these days, who frankly seem to view philosophy as some sort of parody of Jackson Pollock (just throw some paint/words around and say you have a masterpiece/refutation of thousands of years work by some of the greatest minds in human history).

On topic (that is, suggesting arguments from the "side"), I might suggest some of the scholars from the left of New Testament studies, names like Crossan and Ehrman come to mind (though they aren't exactly atheists), but I can't say that I find many of their arguments (especially Crossan's) to be very convincing. If by "clever or interesting" you mean "creative (but often unlikely or ad hoc) and mildly entertaining (but probably not true)," there are more books to be found than you would ever like to read. If you've access to a good academic library and an inter-library loan system, you could very well set yourself up to read about Jesus as a sage, militant, philosopher, mystic, etc for the rest of your life. I've certainly wasted enough of my time at university huddled over books from the New Testament studies section.