Reading List addendum

Post Reply New Topic

If anybody is up for it, Robert Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy - it was recommended to us by a brother in law.

It varies - parts are pretty dense. The proofs seem to be philosophical proofs - the scientific evidence is left as evidence, not proof. And the philosophical proofs are written with a level of stiff formalism that I am not comfortable with, though I can slog through. I don't like that kind argument even in Linguistics, frankly.

Still, he has put a lot of material and thought into a medium sized volume. I would not recommend it for fun reading, unless you read Wittgenstein in the loo. But he tosses some interesting points into the ring.

Eh, not likely to read it. I mean, I probably could, but I don't like "stiff formalism" as well. Also, metaphysics isn't a branch of philosophy I have a lot of faith in. It is interesting that a lot of physics will be invoked, but from what I saw of the book chapters, really most of the argumentation will be pretty much focused on abstract metaphysics, or even just abstract cosmology. I am not a cosmology guy. I am really more focused on the details that can be observed at all times, not speculating over the past.

Amazon prices are also too high for the book, as I won't tend to buy anything if it costs me over $10.

I dunno, I am not very likely to have enough interest to read another book on this topic anytime soon anyway. There are so many other books on the list of things I ought to read, and honestly, this book isn't high enough on that list. Even further, I just don't take God very seriously as an explanation, which kind of undercuts all arguments for "God explains THIS!! !".

Will have to look at reading it. At the moment I am reading 'The Rage Against God' by Peter Hitchens. Next on my list is Sam Harris's book on evolutionary morality.

In relation to reading about proofs of God I recommend anything by Alvin Plantinga.

I think worse than that, normally such attempts work hard to disprove scientific theories only to replace it with absolutely no counter-theories other than "god" which is about as lazy as you can get. "God keeps the electrons moving because Heisenberg couldn't figure it out...BUT GOD KNOWS!!"

Those Christians always oppose science don't they. Must have missed that when I was studying Georges Lemaître, Stanley Jaki, C.F. Von Weizsaker, Freedan Dyson, John Polkinghorn, Michal Heller and many many others.

I simplified too much, I take it. The appeal always comes down to either a call to ignorance or a call to "this MUST be divine because it's so perfect!" (again, simple...but I don't feel like constructing a whole fake argument for a fake god).

The funniest ones are the ones that discuss the fine-tuned universe because it completely neglects the obvious: just because everything happened the right way still doesn't mean that there's a god but just that the conditions were right for things to happen and it doesn't efficiently argue beyond that point without reverting back to a call to ignorance ("GOD KNOWS!! !" or "IT'S GOD DOING IT!!). But yeah, calling the universe fine-tuned by a deity is an absurd elevation of something that simply is.

Stating that something simply is, is not very intellectually curious.

What I meant is that it is absurd to attach an esoteric meaning beyond what it is. Not to simply leave it unstudied.

Science and Nonbelief, published in 2006 by Tanner Edis, is one damn good theoretical-atheism book and devles quite deeply into the philosophy of science.

A bit of a rhetorical concern is that creationists often use the same tactic of giving lists of people's names. You doing the same kind of reminds people of creationists doing that. It might not be the best of ideas.

Considering you know I am not a YEC, that is a quite an uncharitable statement.

I am not trying to insult you, just pointing out that on this forum, we have seen YECs giving names of scientists. People who've been here awhile might remember this. I know I remembered that when I saw your post. This undermines your efforts, regardless of the strength of your position.

I can understand what you are saying to some extetd. However, I see no reason why religious people should not be able to attach meaning to whatever they want. I have a problem with engaging in pseudoscience: as in labeling something as God within a scientific journal. I cannot see a place for that. Equally I can see no reason why someone should attach the equally philosophical conclusion, 'that there is no God', within the same sort of journals. These sorts of studies are blatantly philosophical and therefor I can see no reason why should not make a case for the existence or nonexistence of God within those sorts of journals.

What it is to be of a past sell by date generation.

Megaacronymics came in [big time in Linguistics, I am sorry to say] after I learned to speak, so I do not handle alphabet soup easily. Had I been in WWII [awol, snafu and all that] it might be easier. I pretty much peter out with abbreviations of the snob and verbum sap type.

However, I did - pardonable pride - figure YEC after only a few cycles.