Essential reading/material for Atheists & Theists

[Mr Question]

Hope everyone is having a good day (or night depending on your location).

I thought it would be great to compile a list of essential reading and or debates/videos. I'm looking for material from both perspectives, so as to further my understanding in the least biased manner possible.

Post away

[StillSearching]

Material from either of the two camps is, by its very nature, biased, is it not?

Having said that, I think C.S. Lewis' A Case for Christianity certainly belongs on the list. Not the end-all of theistic arguments by any means, but a good place to start.

[Mr Question]

Material from either of the two camps is, by its very nature, biased, is it not?

Having said that, I think C.S. Lewis' A Case for Christianity certainly belongs on the list. Not the end-all of theistic arguments by any means, but a good place to start.

Of course, sorry my comment wasn't clear. I meant in a personal sense. If the only thing I ever read/view is from an atheistic viewpoint then I am doing my self a disservice, I want both 'sides' so as to learn from where atheists AND theists are coming from.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Matt]

I think Wolfhart Pannenberg's Systematic Theology is the best defense of Christianity to date.

[Brad]

Has anyone read Francis Collins' latest book consisting of essays by other people?
If so, anyone consider it of great value?

As for the best materials otherwise to educate oneself and to decide between the Christian and atheist perspective, the best book of all for any objective reader, by far and indisputedly is...THE BIBLE.
If you're not a masochist and don't wish to wade through the whole shebang, I'd recommend reading the first "book" of the Hebrew bible and the last "book" of the Christian bible. Compare both with what you know of the actual world. Then at least scan the red letter text - the purported words of Jesus - to get a sense of what Christianity is really supposed to be about.

Also, the story of how the Bible came to be in the English language in the first place is fascinating and quite informative as to how Christianity has played out in reality over the centuries. I'd liked Wide as the Waters but haven't read God's Secretaries or other similar books.

Regarding writings from the perspective of non-belief, I think the best are those of articulate former believers.
I think Dan Barker's Godless and William Lobdell's Losing My Religion are particularly excellent.
Also, here's a short essay by a former minister I've linked here many times that I think is among the best musings on the subject.
Another truly excellent internet resource are the many excellent essays by Richard Carrier, available here. I recommend Why I Am Not a Christian and maybe Our Meaning in Life for starters.

A excellent quick read from an atheist perspective is Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.

For further understanding of how Christian beliefs and dogma can lead to willful ignorance and outright dishonesty and why more and more people have had enough of both, have a look at Monkey Girl by Edward Humes, a book describing an effort by Christians to blunt science education in a small Pennsylvania town, Dover.

For audio materials, in addition to the wonderful podcast associated with this forum, I think the best sources are the many insightful interviews on Point of Inquiry and also the Reasonable Doubts podcasts. These are available on individual web sites and on itunes. Both the original host of P of I and all three RD hosts are former evangelical Christians.

For videos and debates, well, I've got to go, , but I'd highly recommend any of the "Intelligence Squared" debates that can be found on youtube and this debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe.

As you can already observe, I can go on and on about this.

Don't get me started on movies...

[JustJim]

As a great reference/learning source for both theism and atheism, I agree with Brad. I strongly recommend the Holy Bible - from cover to cover - preferably in a variety of translations and versions, with a healthy assortment of commentaries and study guides from a variety of perspectives close at hand....

Jim

[Pseudonym]

I think Wolfhart Pannenberg's Systematic Theology is the best defense of Christianity to date.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "defense" of Christianity. That's not usually what systematic theologies are for.

I don't mean to knock it, of course; Wolfhart Pannenberg and and Jurgen Moltmann (they run together in my mind) are probably the best and greatest theologians alive today, at least in the Protestant world. Given that I don't actually agree with some of their position, you should consider this a great praise indeed.

Karen Armstrong's A History of God and The Battle for God are good reads, IMO. I would also add some Joseph Campbell, such as The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

[mitchellmckain]

I would also reccommend reading the Bible before any book about the Bible. It is better to see what you think of it without the filter of anybody's interpretation first. As for order I would reccommend starting with the gospel according to Matthew, then Paul's epistle to the Romans then the gospel according to John and then maybe Genesis and Isaiha.

If you like a more scientific perspective on Christianity (and religion in general) you can read the writings of physicist John Polkinghorne, the psychologists Scott Peck and William James. Karen Armstrong is good for a anthropological perspective.

[JustJim]

God Wants You Dead, by Sean Hastings and Paul Rosenberg, particularly the first 100 pages or so, is also very enlightening. And it's available online in PDF format! I also found James Michner's The Source fascinating as a quasi-fictional historical account of the Jewish people and their relationship with their God.

Jim

[Brad]

First, I agree very much with the first sentence Mitch wrote above, as far as it goes. Why not get at the source first? Of course, the bible we have is not the original source, or even remotely the original source, but believers will dispute that endlessly. (For more on that, for example, one might listen to the recent P of I podcast with Hector Avalos. Also, one or more of Bart Ehrman's books should be on any essential list, in my view.)

Having typed away above about various data points, however, I think the real essential understanding comes from less religion-specific knowledge. Instead, what is needed is a life-long assessment of how we human beings function in life and how religion, as one aspect of human endeavor, plays into human behavior, history, and expectations. For that, study of psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, biology, and other sciences is vital, but so is a breadth of experience over as many years as possible.

For my part, what I’ve concluded is that the essence of religion, and what makes it continue to be a force in human relations is not belief in any specific constructs about gods or texts, but the deep human need to a part of a social network – specifically a social network that magnifies in some way the importance and value of that hominid we see in the mirror. Religions around the world have honed exploitation of that need since, well, for who knows how long.

It’s study of that phenomena that's most interesting of all - to me, anyway.
Of course, some social networks are better than others, and some have intended or unintended byproducts and consequences that are better – or far worse – than others.

In the case of religion, the social groups that fill that human need are most often those we are born into (although we often vary the margins to feel “independent”), but are sometimes sought out on our own when the psychological/social need becomes acute. (See, for a few of a million examples, the movie Marjoe or the Julia Sweeney’s cds or dvd Letting Go of God, or the autobiographies of Karen Armstrong, or the conversion story of the scientist, Francis Collins.)

The bottom line is that truth or rationality or reason one way or the other don’t seem to have a lot to do with most people’s choices and convictions when it comes to god beliefs and religious convictions. (See, for one bizarre example, the case detailed in Lobdell’s Losing My Religion of the Catholic congregants, who upon learning that their priest was a pedophile, supported the priest and despised the media for exposing the facts to the public!)

For most people, it seems, the profound appeal of that social support overrides all other considerations.

To be fair, for some people, those who have formed or grown up with life-long religion-based social bonds, including vital family bonds and who have always been surrounded by a supportive religious community, it’s really too much to ask that they jettison all that simply for reason’s sake. You could say doing that would be crazy, or even not humanly possible. (I’d say our podcast host, Scott, would be a good example of this, as would some of our forum denizens.)

For others in circumstances where they could more easily start anew, the intellectual and emotional effort required to truly think and question, well, hurts their heads. And the courage required to break free and to form less comforting – and far less readily available - bonds is simply absent.

Needless to say, the believers here would reply that the third possibility is that their deity constructs and “divine” book beliefs are true and reflect actual reality. If one thinks that is a serious possibility, then broader life experience and education will help form a considered viewpoint along with the sorts of materials everyone has detailed above.

[Brad]

Jim,
Do you happen to have a link for that pdf file?

Also, regarding debate audio materials, Bart Ehrman has been in some interesting debates with a variety of theists about various historicity arguments, including one I enjoyed with a fellow named Mike Licona. Licona attempts to "prove" the resurrection of Jesus. In my experience, his arguments are generally representative of the sorts of things one hears from relatively sophisticated believers in Christian salvation dogma.

These debates can be found here, and no doubt on youtube and elsewhere, too.

[Matt]

Pseudonym,

Have you ever read Pannenberg's ds

[Matt]

Sorry, my one-year-old daughter posted that before it was ready.

Pseudonym,

Have you ever read Pannenberg's Systematic Theology? Perhaps it's unlike most systematic theologies, but it includes a lengthy discussion on the truth of Christian dogma. Pannenberg doesn't give specific "proofs" for Christianity, but he discusses at length the method by which the claims of Christianity (or any religion) should be evaluated. It's golden.

In short, Pannenberg argues that religions need to be evaluated by the ways in which their gods have acted in history. If a religion says, "Our god does such and such," then that religion is "true" to the extent that "such and such" actually happens. In the case of Christianity, the main areas of evaluation are creation, redemption, and the eventual reconciliation of the world to God.

So, given Pannenberg's method, I would add John Meier's A Marginal Jew and N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God to the list. Meier's A Marginal Jew investigates what Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists can agree upon with regard to the historical Jesus. It is unparalleled in its methodological rigor, even if its portrait of Jesus is minimal. Meier has not addressed the resurrection yet, so Wright's book on it remains the best.

[mitchellmckain]

Nothing of Pannenberg in the local library. The first volume of Systematic Theology costs 30-40 dollars. Tried reading some of his writings online and cannot say that I resonate with his perspective.

I very much agree with what he says in his "God of the philosophers" article. But I disagree with "The Present and Future Church" completely. He is too focused on the survival of the Christian church on the same playing field as religions like Islam and that will only move both Christianity and the world backwards not forwards. That battlefront is NOT one that Christianity should be fighting on for that battle is one of the problems in the world. His is a protectionist view that ultimately has less confidence in Christianity and God rather than more and is a scared cry to retreat and hold on to the past. I see his plan as only putting the final nail in the coffin to guarantee the Christianity has no promise for the future.

[Matt]

Nothing of Pannenberg in the local library. The first volume of Systematic Theology costs 30-40 dollars. Tried reading some of his writings online and cannot say that I resonate with his perspective.

I very much agree with what he says in his "God of the philosophers" article. But I disagree with "The Present and Future Church" completely. He is too focused on the survival of the Christian church on the same playing field as religions like Islam and that will only move both Christianity and the world backwards not forwards. That battlefront is NOT one that Christianity should be fighting on for that battle is one of the problems in the world. His is a protectionist view that ultimately has less confidence in Christianity and God rather than more and is a scared cry to retreat and hold on to the past. I see his plan as only putting the final nail in the coffin to guarantee the Christianity has no promise for the future.

That's a pretty quick dismissal having never read the book, don't you think?

You don't have to read it. While not "essential" reading for Christianity, I think Pannenberg's Systematic Theology is the best one to date. He has moved the discussion beyond Barth and Rahner.