So, I was thinking of buying “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. The thing is, as a rock solid Atheist, I will almost certainly agree with every word he says. I’ll probably still buy it to enjoy an eloquent argument when it hits paperback, but I’m wondering if there is any well-written book that preaches the opposite? Is there any book which does a good job of convincing that a god or gods must exist, and has anyone here moved fom Atheist to Agnostic or Agnostic/Atheist to Theist after reading any such book? For the record I have read the entire KJV Bible and a summarized Koran, neither of which had any impression on me.
C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is the classic attempt at what you are describing. Lewis, in his younger years, was an atheist, and over time moved to a theistic and ultimately Christian worldview. His arguments don’t really come from a scientific background, though, if that’s what you’re looking for. His autobiography Surprised by Joy is also interesting and describes his spiritual journey in more detail.
Lately I’ve been reading Simply Christian by N.T. Wright, a well-known Anglican theologian. His book looks at a number of psychological/spiritual needs that all people seem to share (justice, beauty, relationships, etc) and argues that these point to the existance of some kind of God. From there he goes on to argue for a particular understanding of God, i.e. Christianity. The book is written in very simple language which makes it less a work of scholarship but very accessible for readers unfamiliar with theological language.
I’m not sure if these are exactly what you are looking for, but they might be a place to start. Neither are very long or a very difficult read.
I am currently reading “The Perennial Philosophy” by Aldous Huxley. I’m not sure if it would convince anyone to change their mind, but it does a good job of elucidating common underlying themes in the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism).
Martin Gardner’s The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener is wonderfully written. Gardner, best known for his long-running column “Mathematical Games” in Scientific American, tackles many thorny philosophical issues, including the existence and nature of God. Rather surprisingly, Gardner turns out not to be an atheist. He describes himself as a “fideist.”
There is nothing which argues convincingly that God MUST exist. That would be pretty much an impossible task. There is stuff that tries and fails miserably like Lee Strobel’s Case for… books or Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict. C.S. Lewis was an earlier template for that kind of thing. He also fails, but fails more elegantly. You might enjoy G.K. Chesterton but you will remain unconvinced.
Anyone who wants to prove that God exists is hampered by the complete lack of evidence so the arguments all tend to be some variation of cosmological or teleological and they’re seldom effective with anyone who isn’t already a believer.
If you’re interested in something on Eastern philosophy, try The Book by Alan Watts. Virtually anything by Watts is good. He doesn’t offer arguments for God but does offer some very helpful and entertaining insights into Eastern ideas of Enlightenment.
Nitpick: The term he uses is “philosophical theist,” meaning he believes in and worships a personal God while rejecting the authority of any and all religious traditions/revelations. And he acknowledges that the question of God’s existence cannot be settled by logical argument. The relevant chapters are mainly about making the “leap of faith.” All faith is, of course, a form of wishful thinking, and Gardner’s is no exception, as he would be the first to acknowledge; he believes because he wants there to be a God to whom one might pray in real hope of answered prayers, and, even more importantly, a God who can provide a personal afterlife. (I fail to see the necessity WRT to the latter. It is possible there is a God but no afterlife; it is also possible there is an afterlife but no God.)
Perhaps there are several versions of the book. In my edition, Gardner uses the term “fideist” several times in reference to himself, in addition to the term “philosophical theist.”
I read the same thing. “Fideist”, “Fideism”.
Either term would be fine but the word fideism is basically an explicit confession that belief in God can only be arrived at by faith and not through science or reason, It amounts to a statement that “I believe it because I believe it.”
That’s not exactly convincing to non-believers.
Well, I read the book many years ago. I guess I’ll have to look it up again. But it seems to me “fideist” is a term that could apply to a religious believer of any kind.
Does Soren Kierkegaard go into this kind of thing? I’ve been wanting to read his stuff and I know he was religious. I’m not sure if he actually tried to make a case for the existence of a god or not though.
I’d suggest that if you found something that was actually like “The God Delusion” only from the other side, you wouldn’t be impressed.
According to Dictionary.com : Fideism – noun exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy. That immediately excludes any religion that claims evidence, such as miracles. It excludes any religion that claims to be able to “prove” God logically.
I’d also recommend Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters; I don’t recall ever reading something that was simultaneously so psychologically perceptive and entertaining. Like the OP I’m an atheist, or I suppose agnostic as I don’t think we can ever prove the absence of something, but I was nonetheless awed and a little unsettled by his insight into the ways in which religion–or any spiritual pursuit–can go wrong.
Also it’s a genuinely entertaining work, which adds to the sheer pleasure of reading a master prose stylist such as Lewis.
Like I said, a term that could apply to a religious believer of any kind.
Well, except for a few wierd cults such as Scientology and Catholicism.
Actually, I expect that most religions either claim objective facts support them, or that they are logically provable.