Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

[IWantGod]

To the rest of the world he is just some criminal dude offering people red and blue pills. loool

 

[TULIPed]

It is so funny that some apologists assert that the number of religious people is greater than the number of non-believers, and from that they conclude that atheism is “nonsensical”, but then they turn around and don’t draw the same conclusion when it comes their particular religion - catholicsm included - is small minority when compared to non-catholics. As if it would be a matter of having a majority opinion.

I never said atheism is nonsensical. It makes a lot of sense. Just like a keyboard on a phone.

I just think it’s a bad trade. Just like when I kept my Blackberry until '10 or so. (I even replaced the “pearl” track ball thing a couple of times myself when the store stopped working on it.)

 

[TULIPed]

Ah - now I get it. So WE are like Neo. I like where your head’s at.

 

[IWantGod]

Now I’ve got an itch to binge watch matrix.

 

[FredBloggs]

An atheist can speak in generalities or take on the Bible point by point. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

But the OP asked for books on “refuting atheism” (suspect he/she meant “refuting the conclusions of atheism”). The existence of faith does not refute atheism - it does not prove that atheism is incorrect. It is simply evidence of a particular belief system. Atheists do not deny the existence of faith - they just don’t share it and are happy to explain why not; and are often also happy to poke large holes in the reasoning put forward by theists

To the OP: I’ve read a few of the books that supposedly “destroy” atheism. None of them are based on robust reasoning or evidence. All of them make unsupported assumptions and unsafe assumptions. If you’re looking for something that gives you ready-made arguments to trot out in support of your pre-existing belief, those suggested here will fit the bill. If you put those arguments to an atheist, be prepared for a hard time.

 

[Aloysium]

FredBloggs:

If you put those arguments to an atheist, be prepared for a hard time.

Indeed. The apologists for Christianity keep referring to “faith” and “revelation”, instead of reason and the physical reality, thereby violating the “Trevize Razor”, as @Aloysium referred to the principle: “Always fight your opponent on her playing field.”

By the way, did you like that book “The Eye of the Needle”?

In contrast with Occam’s Rasor which is about trimming the fat around theories to achieve the simplest explanation for a set of phenomena, Trevize’s Rasor (isn’t very charitable, but quite appropriate to the “fight”) trims the facts to arrive at a simplistic explanation.

Christian apologetics deals with the transcendent, hence faith and revelation, which is consistant with reason and of which physical reality plays a role as the substance which is used to express the spiritual in us within time and space.

Communication is quite a mystery, and the meanings of these words, physical events meant to convey meaning, I doubt will resonnate in the poster above as they were meant. Ultimately, the only opponent is ignorance and the playing field is within oneself. And, we are all reluctant to leave the illusions we build around the little light we have. Having faith in God however, and letting go, what we need to know to satisfy our thirst for knowledge, and for our salvation, will all be revealed.

 

[Wozza]

Aloysium:

In contrast with Occam’s Rasor which is about trimming the fat around theories to achieve the simplest explanation for a set of phenomena, Trevize’s Rasor (isn’t very charitable, but quite appropriate to the “fight”) trims the facts to arrive at a simplistic explanation.

I guess some clarification is in order.

Occam’s Razor is an epistemological principle, which says that between two competing explanations (with equal explanatory value) you should choose the one, which has fewer assumptions - as a working hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the “simplicity” of an explanation. The offered “goddidit” is extremely simple, but it has absolutely no explanatory value and cannot be verified or falsified.

Trevize’s Razor (which was your terminology, and I gladly accept it) says that in a discussion (or “fight”) the proper approach is to establish a common ground which is something that both parties accept.

Without an agreement of this kind, there can be no constructive dialog between the two parties - they will talk past each other. Obviously, the existence of the physical reality cannot be disputed - it is supported by physical evidence. This is not applicable to the alleged non-physical (spiritual???) realm, so any dialog must start on the platform of physicality.

If, during the exchange it becomes obvious that the physical reality is insufficient, then - and ONLY then - can the discussion step beyond the actual, physical reality. Unfortunately for the apologists, each and every attempt, made by Aquinas, Kreeft and other assorted philosophers, their attempt is rife with irrational and even logically incorrect assumptions. To add insult to injury, even if a “faceless first cause” could be established, there is no way from this simple “creator” to the feature-rich God of Christianity. The attributes are partly undefined or underdefined, or linguistically nonsensical, and sometimes the are mutually contradictory.

So the apologists are between a rock and a hard place. Poor buggers.

I agree that the slashing away of anything that is in initial dispute to reach common ground is critical. More power to Trevize’s Razor. But I have found that in some cases there is so much slashed away that it’s difficult to remember what the original point was and almost impossible to get traction to return to it.

I’ve known ‘discussions’ where I’ve had to slash so much away that the common ground was a waste land.

 

[Aloysium]

the proper approach is to establish a common ground which is something that both parties accept.

That wasn’t my definition.

Trevize’s Rasor trims the facts to arrive at a simplistic explanation.

This is what I observed of the argument to which I was replying.

The common ground may be the revelations provided by epirical science, but these have to be placed in the proper context of their limited scope.

A common ground is exceptional and much to be appreciated when achieved.