If I were doing such a list it would be.
The book description is as follows:If you accept evolutionary theory, can you also believe in God? Are human beings superior to other animals, or is this just a human prejudice? Does Darwin have implications for heated issues like euthanasia and animal rights? Does evolution tell us the purpose of life, or does it imply that life has no ultimate purpose? Does evolution tell us what is morally right and wrong, or does it imply that ultimately nothing is right or wrong? In this fascinating and intriguing book, Steve Stewart-Williams addresses these and other fundamental philosophical questions raised by evolutionary theory and the exciting new field of evolutionary psychology. Drawing on biology, psychology and philosophy, he argues that Darwinian science supports a view of a godless universe devoid of ultimate purpose or moral structure, but that we can still live a good life and a happy life within the confines of this view.If you accept evolution you need to honestly address the questions of his book, just as I previously recommended Robert M. Price and Edwin A. Suominen's excellent book, Evolving out of Eden: Christian Responses to Evolution.
Ten years in the making, "The Study Quran" is more than a rebuttal to terrorists, said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-born intellectual and the book's editor-in-chief. His aim was to produce an accurate, unbiased translation understandable to English-speaking Muslims, scholars and general readers.Jerry Coyne explains in more detail. Count me among the hopeful ones. It must start somewhere so why not here? CNN tells us the book has been endorsed "by an A-list of Muslim-American academics. One, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, called it 'perhaps the most important work done on the Islamic faith in the English language to date.'" And it was partially funded by King Abdullah II of Jordan, "may he escape Allah's Assassins."
The editors paid particular attention to passages that seem to condone bloodshed, explaining in extensive commentaries the context in which certain verses were revealed and written. "The commentaries don't try to delete or hide the verses that refer to violence. We have to be faithful to the text, " said Nasr, a longtime professor at George Washington University. "But they can explain that war and violence were always understood as a painful part of the human condition."
The scholar hopes his approach can convince readers that no part of the Quran sanctions the brutal acts of ISIS. "The best way to counter extremism in modern Islam," he said, "is a revival of classical Islam."
Here is a review of it by the SanFranscico Book Review. Look like another good one! |
| Meet the Bible: Not Dead Yet! |
I’ve found it interesting that it is very similar to that of ancient native Americans, thousands of years before the time of Abraham. It was the old world “science” of that time of the writings of the ancient Hebrews. Now, if Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a protohistorical-polemical-calendrical-liturgical composition of old world scientific non-revelatory conceptions of origins (received by the learned men), infused with revelatory conceptions (received by supernatural modes), then the Bible could reasonably be considered by faith to be trustworthy concerning creation because: (a) the divinely-revealed revelatory conceptions (that God created the cosmos, humans, animals and vegetation) have not been debunked by science, as it is not inconsistent with God to create over a vast amount of time or create humans that evolve from less complex animals (and I’ve built an argument that God is more likely create an OEC world versus a YEC world); and (b) such a view of Scripture (infusion of the human and the divine) is consistent with plenary-verbal inspiration and a qualified inerrancy (2 Tim. 3:16) that takes into account the divine objectives of progressive revelation, divine hiddenness in order to bring about a greater good.
was written by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge. I like the blurbs, especially this one:If you have ever wondered about premature skeptics who questioned beliefs held sacrosanct in their own time--such as religion or slavery in the ancient world--this is the book for you. In plain English, classics scholar Tim Whitmarsh explores the minds of those who doubted the existence of gods more than 2500 years ago and got into trouble because of their doubts. It is a pure delight to be introduced to people who questioned the supernatural long before modern science provided physical evidence to support the greatest insights of human reason. —Susan Jacoby, author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.I taught introduction to philosophy classes and was always curious how some people in the ancient world could question the existence of god, or gods, without the scientific evidence we have in today's world, or the scientific method itself! This book is now on my wish list.
The reason science works so well is partly that built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend — substantively and in depth....Science is part and parcel humility. Scientists do not seek to impose their needs and wants on Nature, but instead humbly interrogate Nature and take seriously what they find. We are aware that revered scientists have been wrong. We understand human imperfection. We insist on independent and — to the extent possible — quantitative verification of proposed tenets of belief. We are constantly prodding, challenging, seeking contradictions or small, persistent residual errors, proposing alternative explanations, encouraging heresy. We give our highest rewards to those who convincingly disprove established beliefs. LINK.
What are you an expert in? Whether it's politics, chemistry or playing an instrument, a new study finds there's one major downside to having in-depth knowledge of a certain subject.The article tells experts how to overcome their "earned dogmatism": "The findings suggest that the best way to be an expert is to work towards achieving mastery while reminding ourselves of how much we still don't know." That's great advice for us all. However, the evangelical minded expert has an answer book, the canonized writings of ancient superstitious men found in the uninterpreted Bible. Their Bible contains the source of all truth. Study it to find out how to raise kids, counsel prisoners, or learn about the origins of the universe, where humankind came from, why we're here, where we go when we die, and so forth. In other words, the antithesis of science.
Research from Loyola University of Chicago suggests that being an expert can make you more closed-minded -- and therefore less creative -- in your thinking. The study found that people who perceive themselves to be experts tend to be less open to new ideas and alternative viewpoints. LINK.
With the publication of Richard Carrier's 2014 book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, the intensity has subsided.
There were other scholars involved of course, and the war might grow in intensity again if/when Robert Price and Bart Ehrman debate the issue. [I haven't heard for sure if they will]. The reason the war subsided is probably because all the available evidence and arguments have been put forth and discussed. My position is that at the very best, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, as I argued in chapter 12 for The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.
Beyond this best case scenario, my claim is that The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed! and that should be good enough for my purposes, letting bona fide historians tackle the question of his actual existence.
It's a whopping 420 pages long. The book seems to be a summation and exposition of the debate so far. You can look at its description on Amazon and see inside the book for more. It purports to be written for a lay audience. One thing noteworthy is that Raphael Lataster is agnostic on the question of the existence of Jesus (just like Hector Avalos), whereas Carrier thinks it's a 67% probability Jesus did not exist.
A counterargument to your own should first be summarized in its strongest form, with holes caulked as they appear, and minor inconsistencies or infelicities of phrasing looked past. Then, and only then, should a critique begin. This is charitable by name, selfishly constructive in intent: only by putting the best case forward can the refutation be definitive. The idea is to leave the least possible escape space for the “but you didn’t understand…” move. Wiggle room is reduced to a minimum.Over the years as I have engaged Christian intellectuals, I have found that even the best of them cannot do this when critiquing atheism. I have even recommended Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk's book, 50 Great Myths About Atheism, that would help them. But none of them have ever replied, "Yes, I got that book, thanks John, and I intend to read and digest it."
Darwin’s special virtue in this enterprise is that he had to summarize, sympathetically, views contrary to his own that did not yet exist except in his own imagination. His special shrewdness lay in making as large an emotional meal of the objections in advance as could be made; he preempted his critics by introjecting their criticisms. He saw what people might say, turned it into what they ought to say, and then answered. LINK.
I know they haven't got the book, since they keep on saying the same damn ignorant things. 