Book Recommendations
Ah, Open Theist writings. I think I have a friend who read that particular book. That friend ended up liking the writings of Greg Boyd more than John Sanders. Greg Boyd is a weird one, a Bible-believing, anarchist, pacifist, open-theist, annihilationist.
That being said, I tend not to take open theism seriously. "Free will", despite being so intuitive, probably doesn't exist given that the brain seems to function causally, given that neurological processes give answers before we are even aware of those answers, and given that I tend to doubt the ontological divide between past and future given that physics tend to reject our simple intuitive view of time.
I'm currently reading Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy', which fulfils all your requirements, although may well be in the public domain and you've probably read it anyway.
Again you have probably read a lot of Dan Dennet's stuff, but one of his most recent books 'Breaking the Spell' I would recommend - it is about religion, but not about trying to disprove God or not (he considers the arguments for that have been just about 'done' as much as they can be), but about analysing why religion may have started and what human requirements it fulfills etc. - maybe would provide some more useful ammunition in your strident atheistic stance, although he does spend a lot of the book admitting that we need to do a lot more research into religion, which has previously been rather untouchable in terms of being an investigative subject.
Susan Blackmore's 'Conversations on consciousness' is also interesting as she interviews the main people working in the field (neuroscientists, philosophers, psychologists, mathematicians) and asks them a series of questions about consciousness. It doesn't go into a lot of depth, but is a stepping stone to finding out more about the work of people whose views you appreciate. John Gray's 'Straw Dogs' is also a good one, although quite negative - great if you are feeling nihilistic.
I don't think it is public domain, but I have read it anyway. I own it because it was cheap at a bookstore.
Breaking the spell is alright. It isn't an amazing read, but it isn't bad, just not at the top of my list. If someone had this book, I would recommend they read it.
Doesn't sound deep enough. Perhaps I am at that level, but I think I am relatively knowledgeable as laymen go, so I would probably go with a more substantive work.
This one intrigues me the most. You've read it, correct? Could you make your case one way or another? As it stands, from what I see on this work, it really has the potential to be *very* interesting to me.
Yes I have read 'Straw Dogs' although over a year ago and have to admit the details of it are hazy now (my memory is appalling). I was in quite a nihilistic frame of mind at the time and far from the book being provocative, I found it to be a very realistic view of things, but can see that it challenges the assumptions of most people, both religious and atheistic humanists. I think it is an important book to read - not the most well written, but brings up some interesting points. In fact I should go back and read it again once I have finished the 'History of Western Philosophy'.
If you want a more in depth book about consciousness I'm not really sure what to recommend as I haven't read a lot apart from Dan Dennett's 'Consciousness explained', which is now 20 years out of date and could do with updating, and Douglas Hofstadter's 'I am a strange loop', which is interesting but diverges a lot into mathematics, which makes it quite complicated in places, but worth a read if you are into consciousness.
Right, it definitely is on that list of "things I will explore", as every review diverges SO MASSIVELY, I can hardly get a picture of this book.
It is still a very good book, if only because it tries to beat away the intuitive conceptions.
I would get Godel, Escher, Bach before getting this book because I haven't gotten it yet. I hear this book is just a continuation of an idea from the earlier one.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
It is still a very good book, if only because it tries to beat away the intuitive conceptions.
Yes it is a good book, although I didn't have the 'intuitive conceptions' about consciousness for years before I became interested in reading up about it, so was probably not as challenged as the average reader. His work is based on science (which is why I like it, being a scientist), and the science of consciousness has evolved a lot in the past 20 years - I'm sure that some of the predictions he makes in that book have now been tested and would like a review of how his model has changed as science has progressed.
Really? You didn't? That's a bit of a shocker, because the intuitions are just how most people naively perceive the world.
You are right, a more modern neurophilosophy book might be better. I think Dennett even published one, but unless the secondary market of reselling books is large enough, it isn't worth it to buy it in many cases.
1) Deep without being too hard to follow. (the major point shouldn't be a difficult matter of math or logic, but possibly easily stated without using symbolic logic or whatever, and the book easy to follow if one doesn't enjoy math/symbolic logic)
2) Intellectually oriented, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, religion, etc.
3) Powerful, important, paradigm-shifting, etc.
4) Not public domain. (public domain books can be downloaded without problems in many cases)
5) Fiction and non-fiction works are both valid. (sometimes fiction works can also be well-regarded as intellectually stimulating)
Btw, in case anybody has forgotten, I am STRIDENTLY atheistic.
(This message has been paid for by the commission to awesomize Awesomelyglorious)
Have you read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene? The book is about string theory but doesn't have any equations in it as it's for the general audience. Plus there are sections in it, which he says you can skip if it gets too technical. With regards to intellectually oriented things, I'm not sure if physics stuff is your cup of tea though. Brian Greene also wrote another book called the Fabric of The Cosmos, which is more general physics.
Well, I only got seriously interested in philosophy a few years ago, and found that I had already thought about most of the main topics and come to my own conclusions about things, not realising they were philosophy (never having had a chance to study it at school etc.). It seemed fairly obvious to me that free will was an illusion and have spent my life going from blind religious follower (as a young child), through mysticism and agnosticism to fairly strong atheism, before reading any of the arguments for and against religion. Slightly annoying though to find that most of the ideas I had, had already been thought of by other people. Still, this is what you get when you grow up in similar social/religious/political backgrounds. Most of my views on consciousness/free will etc. have been heavily shaped by severe psychotic depression, which considerably influences the way you perceive the 'self'.
What are the prerequisites?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind
I would get Godel, Escher, Bach before getting this book because I haven't gotten it yet. I hear this book is just a continuation of an idea from the earlier one.
I would recommend getting Godel's Theorem by Newman & Nagel before getting Godel, Escher, Bach. It doesn't really contain any philosophy about consciousness, but it's shorter than the Hofstadter book (!) and it even features an intro by Hofstadter saying how it was that book more than any other that inspired him to (eventually) write Godel, Escher, Bach.
I haven't read anything by Brian Greene, however, I am not very interested in string theory given ongoing questions on its scientific merit. I also would prefer to avoid basic physics given that it also feels like a category that could be picked up elsewhere, given that physics itself isn't copyrighted.
Ok, now I understand. Many of my views were shaped by a situation, which while wasn't nearly as bad, was still enough to considerably influence how I perceived the self.
Not a bad idea, but I think I can get a tao-te ching online. I've also read it before.
I don't see the point. It is likely a good book, but I am reasonably familiar with Godel's theorem. Not enough to prove it, but I have some idea about it and what it proves and a vague idea of how it works. (it is similar to the liar's paradox from what I hear)
Ah, Open Theist writings. I think I have a friend who read that particular book. That friend ended up liking the writings of Greg Boyd more than John Sanders. Greg Boyd is a weird one, a Bible-believing, anarchist, pacifist, open-theist, annihilationist.
That being said, I tend not to take open theism seriously. "Free will", despite being so intuitive, probably doesn't exist given that the brain seems to function causally, given that neurological processes give answers before we are even aware of those answers, and given that I tend to doubt the ontological divide between past and future given that physics tend to reject our simple intuitive view of time.
The guy who wrote it is a college professor. I've never read books about theism/religion/apologetics, but I sat in on his class and it was very interesting so I picked up his book.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| My short story is going to get published in a book :D |
28 Jun 2026, 2:52 am |
| Being obsessed with a movie/TV series/book universe |
Yesterday, 5:57 pm |
