The Nature of God

God's Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong

by S. T. Joshi

Average Rating:

"I really can't add that much to some of the reviews listed here. If you are religious, then this book will have you convinced that all atheists will find you beneath contempt & will gleefully vomit abuse at you. Incidentally, this perception would be incorrect. If, like me, you agree with Joshi's conclusions & share his views, then you will be very pleased & stimulated by his reasoned arguments. Also, if you are like me, you will soon tire of the puerile invective of the kind Joshi excels. As one reviewer stated, one need not be a Universal Genius to see through the facade that is religion. I applaud Joshi's efforts in dismantling the lame arguments endorsed by the likes of T. S. Eliot, Buckley, and William James, but you needn't use a shotgun on a housefly. The pro-God arguments are, in and of themselves, so shaky that Joshi doesn't need to resort to calling James "poor Willie" or Buckley a "fool". In resorting to these tactics, Joshi has sadly miscalculated. Don't get me wrong, sometimes invective is very amusing & effective. Nietzsche, Mencken and Schopenhauer all loved to hit below the belt, but then all three were literary geniuses and genuinely funny! Joshi isn't either. His humor is either condescending (due to his self-importance) or self-pitying (due to his lack of cash). Books by David Hume, Carl Sagan or Daniel Dennett would all make better introductions to agnostic/atheistic thought for the novice. Not only do they make their points as well as Joshi does, they understand how human fear & frailty leads to theism. That said, Joshi's arguments destroys his opponents'. Although Falwell & Chesterton are easy targets, Joshi wonderfully reduces the arguments of (pseudo) intellectuals like Stephen Carter, William F. Buckley and William James to bits. He is equally able at rebutting Christian sacred cows like T. S. Eliot & the ridiculously influential C. S. Lewis. It is because of Joshi's effective arguments that I give this four stars. If he had toned-down some of the personal abuse, I would have easily given it five. Incidentally, Joshi makes a lame joke about dour Scotsmen. Hmmm. I don't think David Hume or John Stuart Mill would appreciate that..."

Publisher: Prometheus Books | More reviews: amazon.com

Signs Of God: Miracles And Their Interpretation

by Mark Corner

Signs of God reveals why discussion of the nature of miracles is of central rather than marginal importance where belief in God is concerned. Miracles cannot be shunted to one side as an embarrassing hangover from a 'pre-scientific age'. Miracles have played an important role in the history of all the major world religions, and many religious believers claim that they continue to do so. Yet they have also been criticized from a philosophical viewpoint as incompatible with a belief in laws of nature, and those who seek to have their religious beliefs properly attuned to the modern world often prefer to do without them. This accessible book examines the nature of miracles both in philosophical and historical terms, and concludes that, whether or not miracles happen, it is difficult to see how religious belief could survive without them.

Publisher: Ashgate Publishing | More reviews: amazon.com

The Nature of Man and God: New Look How We Know Our Self, Our God, and Our Life\'s Purpose

by Simon S. Godfrey

The author, a retired psychologist, presents in plain language, a challenging discussion regarding human identity and divinity, demonstrating that the best way to know God is to know ourselves.

Publisher: Trafford Publishing | More reviews: amazon.com

Conversations with the Goddess

by Mark Amaru Pinkham

Average Rating:

"Conversations with the Goddess reveals to anyone who has the "ears to hear and the eyes to see" the true teachings of the ancient Goddess culture. The direct revelation from the Goddess in this book is no less to be respected than that in religious texts such as The Bible, The Koran, The Baghavad Gita, and others. The Goddess Herself has revealed to Mark Pinkham the information that She wants disseminated upon the planet today...for the revival of Her way of life....as opposed to the left-brain, logical, rational partriarchal intellectualism that has driven our way of life upon our planet to the place it is today - one lacking the marriage between heart and mind. It's time that people pay attention to Her teachings. If you are a person who wants to live your life tune with the Goddess and thus return our world to peace, then this book is a must for YOU!"

Publisher: Adventures Unlimited Press | More reviews: amazon.com

The Existence of God (Problems of Philosophy Series)

Average Rating:

"As a Pagan, I have to admit that there are quite a few scholars in the field of Divinity, including the editor of this book, John Hick. And by Divinity, I mean study of the monotheistic god. I have very little respect for that god. Let's see how the 23 authors in this book fare when dealing with this topic.

The first argument for the existence of the monotheist god is the ontological one, by Saint Anselm. Anselm argued that perfection entails existence. Since the monotheistic god is perfect, it exists. But Saint Thomas Aquinas rejects this argument. Descartes and Liebniz restate and expand on Anselm's argument, but then Kant argues that existence is not really a predicate. And Norman Malcolm provides further discussion. I think the whole argument is silly given that no being can be perfect, and that even if a being could be perfect in some respect, no such being might exist. But I do think it applies far better to the real Goddesses and Gods than to the monotheist god.

We then get to the "first cause" argument. Plato, Aquinas, and Copelston explain the basis for this argument. But David Hume argues that there is no contradiction in omitting a "first cause." I think that a complex first cause simply violates Occam's Razor. Whatever the Gods and Goddesses may be, they are not first causes. Perhaps existence can come from nothing, but there is no reason to assume that it starts with impossibly infinite complexity.

After that we have the argument from Design. A watch needs a watchmaker. Paley states this argument, unaware of Hume's strong criticism of it from 23 years earlier. I think this argument does suffer from one of the same problems as the First Cause Argument, namely "who made god?"

We then get to the problem of evil (which appears to make hash out of the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent and benevolent god). And arguments from morality, and from religious experience.

There's an interesting debate between Copelston and Bertrand Russell. After this, there is an article that discusses the validity of biblical arguments, and another about whether theistic proofs make sense even from a religious point of view.

We then get to a powerful argument, namely falsification. This is stated powerfully by A. J. Ayer and Anthony Flew. Namely, what would have to happen (or have to have happened) to convince one that god does not love us or does not exist? The answer to that question helps define what one means when one discusses god (if in fact there is any cognitive meaning at all). Braithwaite concedes this argument, but explains that religious statements have ethical significance, while John Hick asserts that the claim of god's existence is of a factual nature.

I recommend this book to those interested in the subject.

"

Publisher: The Macmillan Company | More reviews: amazon.com

The Goddess and Her Heroes

by Heide Gottner-Abendroth

Dr. Gttner-Abendroth has lifted matriarchy out of its mythological cloud by showing that matriarchal-based religions not only existed up to about 3500 years ago throughout the Indo-European world, but that their remnants remained for many centuries among the farmers and country people everywhere until the late Middle Ages, when they were systematically extinguished by the inquisitions and witch burnings. Dr. Gttner-Abendroth points out that Western historians, in upholding patriarchy, have ignored and dismissed these remnants, along with the important matriarchal values that accompany them, such as respect for the earth and nature, and for feeling and emotion, since patriarchy gives value only to intellect, to gain and loss, and to might as right. As a consequence of this thinking running to its logical extreme, she says, the welfare of the earth upon which we live is threatened. While Dr. Gttner-Abendroth in no way proposes returning to a matriarchal culture, she emphasizes that we desperately need to re-integrate these lost matriarchal values to bring balance and health back to our civilization.

Publisher: Anthony Publishing Company | More reviews: amazon.com

Religion Is Not About God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture Our Biological Nature And What to Expect When They Fail

by Loyal Rue

Average Rating:

"Almost half the book, a good part of Part 2, is devoted to explaining the gist of 5 major religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. For anyone interested in getting a good grasp of what any or all of these religions is about, I'd recommend this book for this benefit alone. Much of the chapter on Buddhism was superb: the difficult teaching of "no self" is explained as well as I've seen it presented anywhere. Similarly the heart of Islam seems well explained (in just a 27 page chapter): for anyone who doesn't appreciate the power of Islam, I'd strongly recommend this chapter. The other 3 religions are also presented with care and apparent respect.

I had, however, a number of problems with the book:

1. The presentation seems Pollyanna-ish, despite Rue's concerns at the end of book of the future of religion. For example, the chapter on Christianity doesn't mention early Christianity's persecution of Gnostic Christians and destruction of their literature, nor the Inquisition, nor the European wars between Protestants and Catholics, nor recent problems such as those in Northern Ireland. Rue's claim of "social coherence" as a key benefit of religions seems questionable, yet he seems not disposed to questioning it.

Rue claims the goals of "personal wholeness and social coherence" with only a brief warning that religious institutions might abuse their regulatory activity. B.F. Skinner devoted a chapter of "Science and Human Behavior" to the issues of religous control. Do Rue's appeals to human nature establish that a regard for "personal wholeness" is a key factor in religions? If it is a key factor, does he establish that the meaning of "personal wholeness" isn't often inappropriately manipulated by religious authorities, beyond what might be needed for adequate "social coherence"? Is Rue's depiction of religion realistic and has he demonstrated that by any comparison with other plausible depictions? Some people might stay with a religion for other reasons than "personal wholeness". Is "personal wholeness" well-defined enough : Rue says it is "maximizing satisfaction of motives" which seems rather vague and hard to measure. Is it clearly critical to religious participation? Just mostly it and social coherence?

2. Rue appears to have a favortism of theism. He calls his book "Religion Is Not About God" even though one of his major religions, Buddhism, isn't about God to begin with. Sure, some Buddhists treat Buddha as a god and some Buddhist branches acknowledge gods, but that's not the gist of Buddhism. Worse, Rue speaks of the extremes of "nihilsim and theism" when one opposite of theism, atheism, need not be nihilistic at all, and another opposite of theism, Buddhism, is one of the very major religions that Rue praises for providing meaningfulness.

3. In his chapter on Christianity, for example, Rue, focusing on capturing the myth, ignores historical concerns. There is no mention of other religons of the time (excepting Judaism) such as the mystery religons or philosophies such as Stoicism. There seems no consideration at all that a philosophy might provide personal wholeness and social coherence. Rue takes for granted the historicity of Jesus, even though that isn't necessary to establish the myth and even though the historicity of Jesus has long been open to serious question (e.g. "The Jesus Puzzle"). Rue seems to have oversimplified in his effort to demonstrate that a religion, such as Christianity, leads to personal wholeness and social coherence.

4. Rue seems to ignore whether there are non-religious ways to achieve personal wholeness and social coherence. By doing so, he seems in no position to assert that the contribution of religions to these goals exceeds that of other ways.

5. While it is intruiging to consider Consumerism as a religion, as Rue does, it's hard to see how Consumerism can offer "personal wholeness", at least when one considers our American society, which seems to have many lonely, alienated affluent individuals. In fact, Consumerism arguably makes "personal wholeness" harder to attain, perhaps by leaving individuals with too much time on their hands and often too little meaningful contact with others.

6. Here's Rue on human nature: "Human beings are star-born, earth-formed creatures endowed by evolutionary processes to seek reproductive fitness...Humans maximize their chances for reproductive fitness by managing the complexity of these systems in ways that are conducive to the simultaneous achievement of personal wholeness and social coherence." Star-born?

So where does Rue establish that we need a sense of personal wholeness in order to reproduce? When Rue says personal wholeness is "maximizing satisfaction of motives", why must it be "maximizing"? Can't I just get by, and be whole enough and reproductively fit enough? Won't it be stressful to have to maximize my personal wholeness and reproductive fitness? If I have a sex a lot, will that maximize my "satisfaction of motives" and, by itself, make me feel personally whole? Will satisfying my partner qualify as "maximizing conformity to shared standards of behavior".

7. Rue states that "Pinker is delivering the final, if not posthumous, deathblow to behaviorism". Perhaps Rue is unaware of a March 2004 article by Roddy Roediger, president of the American Psychological Society and himself a cognitive psychologist, in the APS's Observer entitled "What Happened to Behaviorism", in which Roediger emphasizes the debt the psychology owes to Skinner and Radical Behaviorism and the ongoing benefits of (Radical) Behaviorism. Perhaps Rue doesn't read "The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis" or 'The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior" or recognize the compassionate, helpful work of Applied Behavior Analysts. Rue associates with Behaviorism (during its hegemony) a "dogmatic prohibition against all theories of the mind." He characterizes Behaviorism's position as "science should not traffic in concepts about unobservable events...". But Skinner and Radical Behaviorists acknowledge private events as natural events and hence addressable by the science of Behavior Analysis because science is concerned with natural events whether they are observable or not. What Skinner and Radical Behaviorists object to is the practice of populating mind with fictitious entities (mentalisms) inferred from our behavior.

8. Rue not only believes Pinker delivered a deathblow to Behaviorism, he also state the Pinker's "How the Mind Works" makes "a good stab at the subject". Rue should read William Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism", which should give him a strong appreciation of why no one should wish that Behaviorism be dead, but also teach him about the dubiousness of the kind of mentalisms that Pinker's book is drenched in. Rue's analyses of religion doesn't seem to depend on Pinker anyway.

9. Rue states that that there be sufficient realism in a religion's root metaphor for it to be accepted. For Christianity, he then notes that the return of Christ to earth at the appointed time for the final judgment would have to have such realism in order for the myth to be effective.
But for Islam, it isn't the root metaphor but the nature of who claimed it that he questions the realism of. He writes: "If you are a realist about Muhammed's epilepsy, then you are not likely to be a realist about his claims to be a messenger from God". Is it realism or ignorant discrimination that would reject Muhammed's claims on that basis? One of the most powerful depictions of God in human history and someone would discount it because it's believed to have been produced by someone suffering from epilepsy? To me it seems all the more marvelous if in fact someone could endure such an affliction and still produce a great work. William James even argued against dismissing the visions of epileptics. Rue seems to define what he means by realism very loosely and then use expand on it abitrarily.

10. There seems to be little or no reference to experimental support for Rue's claims: social psychology rather than cognitive science may be more apt for grounding his speculations experimentally.

"Religion Is Not About God" was a mixed blessing. The religous studies was helpful, much of the psychology of religion was unhelpful and the cognitive science seemed a liability. If you want to learn about the religions he covers, consider reading the less speculative parts of Part 2, which were well worth the value of book for me. "

Publisher: Rutgers University Press | More reviews: amazon.com

Earth Stories: Signs of God's Love and Mystery

by John R. Aurelio

Publisher: Continuum Intl Pub Group | More reviews: amazon.com

Iota: God as Nature, Nature as God

by Charles Gidley Wheeler

Iota is the acronymic name given to God-or-Nature. It stands for the Infinite One which is conceived under the Two Aspects of thought and matter. Following the 17th century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, from whose works he quotes extensively, Wheeler shows that dualism of any sort, whether theological, philosophical or scientific, always leads to contradiction, division, and conflict, and that regarding ourselves as parts of Nature and of each other is the only way forward to healing the divisions and conflicts between absolutist religions, cultures, and faiths. The most important implication of Iota is that to hurt any part of Nature is to hurt our collective self. Until political and religious leaders grasp this simple concept, there will be little hope for peace in the world.

Publisher: iUniverse.com | More reviews: amazon.com

The Universal Mind & I: Intelligent Spiritual Philosophy

by Martin E. Moore

Average Rating:

"The author states that this book is for anyone seeking a deep and systematic explanation of life, and I think this was a fair statement. Every page of this book pours out information of a thought provoking nature. It has the unusual ability to contain a complexity of thought which is coupled with a simplicity of expression. The arguments are provocative and insightful and so well presented that the profundity of what is being revealed usually comes across as basic common sense, yet much of what I was reading was new to me. The author has a way of cutting through the chaos and complexity of life to reveal a simple symmetry. This is well worth a read - every chapter contains a depth of thought that will give you plenty to think about for a long time to come. "

Publisher: iUniverse, Inc. | More reviews: amazon.com