Books that Help Me to Think Like an Informed-Atheist

Most Christians (or theists, for the fact) don't read books that can challenge their faith. Perhaps Christianity itself is perceived as difficult, and so, to add issues to the complexity of the religious beliefs can be troublesome. To me, truth is truth. If Christianity proved to be false, then, by integrity, I have to reject it. And so, in my quest to seek the truth, I explore other alternatives such as atheism. The outcome? Well, after about a year of searching, I can't get rid of the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is too real to be the product of imagination. I believe that He is the way, the truth, and the life
  

Btw, here are 5 books (among others, you can ask me for more info) that I read to explore and experiment with the idea of atheism. The good things about reading these books and others are that they can expand my rational thinking, be compassionate with their arguments, and better understand their perspectives (I agreed a lot). But two cautions that you need to take into account are that they can be very blasphemous (I almost can't stand how they using the name of God in vain) and in their pride to be rational are actually illogical in most of their basic arguments. Read these books at your own risk! #ServeToLead #LeadersAreReaders #TestYourFaith

FB Page: https://facebook.com/LEGASI.tv/ 

Podcast: https://anchor.fm/LEGASI.tv/ 

IG: https://instagram.com/legasi.tv/ 

YouTube: http://bit.ly/LEGASItv 

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.

BOOK REVIEW The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists (2008) by Ravi Zacharias

The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists (2008) by Ravi Zacharias

In 2004 & 2006, Sam Harris, an atheist scientist, wrote two anti-religious books entitled, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation. Before and after that there were other books also published such as Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, and more (Harris, Dawkins, late Hitchens, and Dennett are called the Four Horsemen, main spokespersons of the New Atheism Movement, I think Lawrence Klaus should be the 5th Horse. These are fascinated read except for Dennett's, his books are too philosophical).

So in this book, Ravi Zacharias, a well-known Christian apologist, the founder, and president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministry (RZIM), response to Harris' utterly bankrupt worldview and hatred toward anything religious and faith-based. Ravi in this short book (only 128 pages) eloquently - with his over 30 years of experience in the apologetic, vast amount of knowledge in Christian doctrines, world philosophies, and religions - explain the true nature of evil, the foundation of morality, the meaning of life, the important of hope and love, the necessity for God, the Creator, and more.

The strength of The End of Reason, in my opinion, lies not only in Ravi’s debunking of Harris’ core arguments, but in uncovering the path down which new atheism leads its followers. Ravi exposes the reality that the atheist worldview is inescapably bleak, with no basis for love, hope, morality or the value of human life – that “the emperor has no clothes, and through his verbal magic Harris is trying hard to cover him up.”

My favorite quote from this book: “The worldview of the Christian faith is simple enough. God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing. But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.” Amen!

FB Page: https://web.facebook.com/LEGASI.tv/

IG: https://instagram.com/richard_angelus

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.

Book Review: An Interview with Charles Darwin (2015) by Peter J. Bowler

An Interview with Charles Darwin (2015) by Peter J. Bowler

The author asked a theoretical question: “What if you could sit down with one of the greatest scientific minds of all time – Charles Darwin?” This fictionalized interview, based on Darwin’s own writings and historical facts gives readers like me (with little knowledge but interested to know) a glimpse of how Darwin would have answered the questions people have for him today. From this book, I learned Darwin’s views on education, science, religion and more.

“Charles Darwin is one of the most controversial scientists of all time,” introduce the author. “He proposed an interlocking set of new approaches to the study of how the world we live in has come to assume its present form.” Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, persuaded (most) scientists that they had to take seriously the claim that “all living things have evolved by natural causes from previously existing types.” And he argued that: “there is no preconceived direction of development built into the history of life, and to drive home the point he proposed the mechanism of natural selection, in which populations change according to trial and error… Life is a never-ending process of struggle in which only those best fitted to the local conditions survived and breed.”

Many people found the above suggestions (and some other of Darwinian theories) hard to accept during his time and many still reject them today. The theory conflicts with the Book of Genesis story of creation and the idea that God or Creator created all things perfect at first. If humans are just animals albeit highly intelligent and highly social ones, the critics say, “there seems to be no room here for the immortal soul or transcendent moral values.” And to add more pain to the religious on his time, Darwin suggests that “there is no purpose in the universe.” Darwin makes these conclusions – and came out with the theory of evolution – during his exploratory trip on the HMS Beagle ship around the world: “It was in the Galapagos Islands that Darwin saw the clearest example of this process.”

[Let’s end with the topic of his faith]. Darwin loss his Christian faith first because of so many ‘evidences’ of evolution he found during his time of studies and explorations. And there are few other reasons. “There were [also] personal tragedies that made it difficult for me to carry on believing in a caring God. My favourite daughter, Annie, died horribly at the age of ten… How could a caring God design a world in which the innocent suffers and are snuffed out in that way?” Another reason was that he couldn’t imagine that his late atheist (maybe agnostic) dead brother and father “were damned as far as the most committed Christians are concerned because they don’t accept that Jesus Christ is the saviour.” He continues: “Just because they thought for themselves and decided that the evidence didn’t support the Christian view of God, they are dammed… I can’t believe in a God who requires such a rigid belief in the significance of a single historical event.”

Enough with his believes in God (or the absent of it), this book is interesting, easy-to-understand, and filled with pictures and graphics to help readers to understand more of Darwin’s dangerous ideas. You’ll know important events – not much but sufficient - that causes Darwin to be known as he is today. “If we were visited by superior creatures from another star system… what would they make of the legacy of Darwin as opposed to, say, Marx or Einstein?” Richard Dawkins asks theoretical questions in his foreword of this book, “Would our guests revere another Darwin as one of their greatest thinkers of all time?” With a last sip from my Starbuck coffee, I end this review.

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.

Book Review: Faith versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible (2015)

Faith versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible (2015)

by Jerry A. Coyne

The New Atheist leaders such as Richard Dawkins argues that “it’s hard to see how any reasonable person can resist the conclusions of [Coyne’s] superbly argued book”; and Sam Harris praises Coyne by saying that he “has showing that the honest doubts of science are better – and more noble – than the false certainties of religion.” Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist, author of his first own book Why Evolution is True, argues that “religion and science compete in many ways to describe reality – they both make ‘existence claims’ about what is real – but use different tools to meet this goal… the toolkit of science, based on reason and empirical study, is reliable, while that of religion – including faith, dogma and revelation – is unreliable and leads to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions. Indeed, by relying on faith rather than evidence, religion renders itself incapable of finding truth.”

In May 1988, a 13-year-old girl named Ashley King was admitted to Phoenix Children’s Hospital by court order. She had a tumour on her leg—an osteogenic sarcoma—that was “larger than a basketball” and was causing her leg to decay while her body started to shut down. Ashley’s Christian parents, however, refused to allow doctors permission to amputate and instead moved their daughter to a Christian Science sanatorium, where, in accordance with the tenets of their faith, “there was no medical care, not even pain medication.” Ashley’s mother and father arranged a collective pray-in to help her recover—to no avail. Three weeks later, she died. Had Ashley received medical care, Coyne writes, she would likely have recovered. The Kings, tried in an Arizona court for negligent homicide, expressed no remorse, pleaded no contest, and were convicted on a lesser charge. They effectively escaped punishment, because their actions were faith-motivated. “Had the Kings been atheists,” Coyne writes, “there was a good chance [Ashley] would have lived.”

One day after Coyne giving a talk on evolution, one of the attendees approached him, shook his hand and said, “Dr. Coyne, I found your evidence for evolution very convincing – but I still don’t believe it.” Coyne was amazed. “How could it be that someone found evidence convincing but was still not convinced?” he writes, “The answer, of course, was that his religion had immunized him against my evidence.” He also highlighted one survey stating that 64% of Americans would retain a religious belief even if science disapproved it (which only 23% would consider changing their belief): “If science contradicts the Bible, I will believe the Bible, not science,” one interviewer responded. Some people, he writes, claiming that science and religion are not in conflict but complimenting one another. But in chapter 3, he shows that accommodationist fails.

Jerry Coyle simply argues – from historical, psychological, philosophical, sociological, historical and mainly from scientific views – that any attempt to make religion compatible with science is doomed to fail. “It is time for us to stop seeing faith as a virtue, and to stop using the term ‘person of faith’ as a compliment.” Either you agree or not with his thesis, if you read this book, your faith will be challenge and your mind will be stimulated… I mean, in a good way. What good if you read a book that doesn’t do these things?

[To help me understand this book, I’ve watched two of his interviews on YouTube entitled “Freedom from Religion” and “Faith vs. Fact”]

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.

Simple Book Review: "The Making of An Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief" (2010)

The Making of An Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (2010)
by James S. Spiegel

"Perhaps we should consider the possibility that sceptical objections are the atheists' facade, a scholarly veneer masking the real causes of their unbelief," writes James in this book that looks at how morality or the lack thereof plays an important role in the rejection of God. "[Atheists] willfully reject God despite the fact that the entire universe proclaims His existence." Can immorality lead to unbelief? Surprisingly (or maybe not), Spiegel argued, many well-known atheists are not reticent in acknowledging the volitional aspect of their atheistic beliefs.

But what about those of faith? To my mind that is the bigger question here. Does a lifestyle which rejects the basic tenants of Biblical morality lead to a rejection of God by those of a Biblical world view? After reading this book, I believe you’ll find the answer to that question is an unfortunate - Yes. Scary!

According to Spiegel, "the root of the problem, apparently, is not a lack of intelligence but rather a hardness of heart that is itself caused by immoral behaviour." Morality by its very nature is a God attribute. Without God mankind’s competing self-interests are ultimately destructive. Without God each of us becomes merely the next meal in an endless evolutionary food chain. Is that really how we want to see the beauty and mystery of the world around us? Is science enough? With God, will it be fuller?

I know James tried not be bias as Christian philosopher, tried to be generous and graceful in the first chapter ("Atheistic Arguments, Errors, and Insights"), I respects him for that. Theists and atheists (even sceptics) will be benefited by reading this book. My most uneasy part in this book is when he examines "the faith of the fatherless." The "defective father hypothesis" - the notion that a broken relationship with one's father predisposes some people to reject God. He ends this book well by telling the benefits of being theist and especially as Christ's followers.

Read it! Or watch James's talks/sermons online. Worth it!

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.

Simple Book Review: "What I Believe" (1925)

What I Believe (1925) by Bertrand Russell

For Bertrand Russell, the leading philosopher of the 20^th century, nothing is sacred. Sex, morality, politics, society – all are fair games for him. I wish to read his tick and massive volume of History of Western Philosophy but I have to say no for now. But I will read his second famous book, Why I am not a Christian (Once Russell was declared unfit or ‘heretic’ to teach college-level philosophy because of his attacked on organized religion).

In this short book or rather essay, Russell attempts to say what he think of man’s place in the universe and possible way of achieving the good life. This is how he sums up his idea of what constitutes a life well-lived: “My view is this: The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Knowledge and love are both indefinitely extensible; therefore, however good a life may be, a better life can be imagined. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life.”

No doubt, Russell was an agnostic-atheist. But he was also the great champion of humanism and rational thought. On human rights and ethical issues, for example, on the criminal justice system, he maintains that “Suffering to the criminal can never be justified by the notion of vindictive punishment. If education combined with kindness is equally effective, it is to be preferred; still more is it to be preferred if it is more effective.”

In this book, he put a great emphasis on science and research in contrast to belief and dogma as our main practical tool (as for now) to improve and better the condition of humankind. “An able physician is more useful to a patient than the most devoted friend, and progress in medical knowledge does more for the health of the community than ill-informed philanthropy,” writes Russell. “For example, the spread of cancer is alarming—what are we to do about it? At the moment, no one can answer the question for lack of knowledge; and the knowledge is not likely to emerge except through endowed research.”

Ideas contained in this 42 pages book were and are controversial, contentious and – to the religious keyboard warriors in my Facebook circle – downright blasphemous. I think the arguments within this essay will continue to challenge one’s faith and assumptions. Alan Ryan, who wrote preface of this book thought that Bertrand was “a deeply religious thinker.”

You don’t have to agree with Russell, not all, but keep an open mind.

Ah, dangerous of course. 

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.

Simple Book Review: "An Atheist’s History of Belief: Understanding Our Most Extraordinary Invention" (2013)

An Atheist’s History of Belief: Understanding Our Most Extraordinary Invention (2013)
by Matthew Kneale

Superb. Eye-opening. Thought-provoking. Though not unique, his writing is a smooth reading, probably because Kneale is a writer better known as an award-winning novelist. Only the last part of this book and somewhere (few parts) in the middle is sort of – boring and leave me with more questions than answers. As a whole, I think he should change the title of this book to A Brief History of the Invention of Belief. Kneale is true to his title, by the way, he gives a history of belief, not religion.

He start on an individual note: "As the son of a Manx Methodist atheist and a refugee German Jewish atheist, I have never been much of a believer. Yet, like everyone else, I find myself surrounded by belief.” With that introduction, I find that Kneale does not preach atheism but dissects, like a historian, the pillar of society called belief. Starting with prehistoric man, the journey follows how belief became a part of our being, and why. This book, no doubt, soul food for atheists and an anti-theological thought experiment for agnostics and the liberally faithful. But regardless of your faith (or lack thereof), if you want a book to help you see/challenge your beliefs from various angles, this is the one.

What first prompted prehistoric man, sheltering in the shadows of deep caves, to call upon the realm of the spirits? And why has belief thrived since, shaping thousands of generations of shamans, pharaohs, Aztec priests and Mayan rulers, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Nazis, and Scientologists? What really happened? What had caused people to come up with such strange-seeming notions as paradise, hell, end of the world or sin? Or gods? Kneale offers his answers, his ideas based on research and history… that mean… not without his own personal bias and limited knowledge.

This book is divided into 10 chapters:

#1 Inventing Gods

#2 Inventing Paradise

#3 Inventing Deals with God

#4 Inventing the End of the World

#5 Inventing Humble Heaven

#6 Inventing a Religion, Inventing a Nation

#7 Inventing Elsewhere

#8 Inventions from the Underground

#9 Inventing Witches

#10 Inventing New Comforts

Matthew writes this forward: “This book does not seek to belittle religion. On the contrary, the more I have looked at intense beliefs, the more I have found them fascinating. They say so much about us. As a fiction writer, who tries to make a livelihood from imagination, I have considerable professional respect for what is, I would propose, humankind’s greatest imaginative project.” Read at your own risk!

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.

Simple Book Review: The God Delusion

The God Delusion (2006) by Richard Dawkins

“If you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing, it would be worth asking yourself how this came about. The answer is usually some form of childhood indoctrination,” writes Richard Dawkins. Calling himself as consciousness-raiser atheist, he said, “My dream is that this book may help people to come out” and “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen to me. And yet, I find that this book is thought-provoking and brilliant.

When I talked to my friends about this book, I asked them to question me as if I’m an atheist. Because I studied Dawkins’s perspectives and arguments mainly from documentaries such as “The Genius of Charles Darwin”, “The God Delusion: The Root of All Evil”, “Enemies of Reasons”, “The Atheist: Richard Dawkins”, “Faith School Menace” and through his many debates and interviews such as “The Selfish Gene” and “An Appetite for Wonder”, easily I find that in the end of our conversations my friends are either looking up thinking, speaking up defensively or shutting up conclude that it doesn’t matter. For the latter group of people, I would like to quote Dawkins: “Unquestioning faith is [not] a virtue.”

There are many things I agree with the author such as “There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents”; “Religion can be a force for evil in the world”; “Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness [suicide bombers] in otherwise sane and decent people”; “The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism”, etc. What I disagree with Dawkins are his treatments of the Scripture (out-of-context), his ideas about the God of the Old Testament (The God hypothesis), and his bias references to Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus suggesting that Jesus is a myth and never really existed.

As Christian, I make it a habit NOT to read only Christian books. In the past I had read book by Michael Shermer, another influential atheist, entitled The Believing Brain (I would also refer to Sam Harris and late Christopher Hitchens). Both books instead of moving me away from the God of the Bible, they actually help me to think biblically and critically on the faith issues. Books that doesn’t help you to think, doesn’t worth your time. However, if you’re a new Christian, I suggest that you may want to strengthen your faith and understanding of the Word first. Discernment and Biblical worldview are much needed especially if you want to read this kind of books. Below are Richard Dawkins’s book contents:

Chapter 1: A Deeply Religious Non-Believer

Deserved respect. Undeserved respect.

Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis

Polytheism. Monotheism. Secularism, the Founding Fathers and the religious of America. The poverty of agnosticism. NOMA. The Great Prayer Experiment. The Neville Chamberlain School of evolutionists. Little green men.

Chapter 3: Arguments for God’s Existence

Thomas Aquinas’ ‘proofs’. The ontological argument and other a priori arguments. The argument from beauty. The argument from personal ‘experience.’ The argument from scripture. The argument from admired religious scientist. Pascal’s Wager. Bayesian arguments.

Chapter 4: Why There Almost Certainly is No God

The Ultimate Boeing 747. Natural selection as a consciousness-raiser. Irreducible complexity. The worship of gaps. The anthropic principle: planetary version. The anthropic principle: cosmological version. An interlude at Cambridge.

Chapter 5: The Roots of Religion

The Darwinian imperative. Direct advantages of religion. Group selection. Religion as a by-product of something else. Psychologically primed for religion. Tread softly, because you tread on my memes. Cargo cults.

Chapter 6: The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?

Does our moral sense have a Darwinian origin? A case study in the roots of morality. If there is no God, why be good?

Chapter 7: The ‘Good’ Book and the Changing Moral Zeitgeist

The Old Testament. Is the New Testament any better? Love thy neighbour. The moral Zeitgeist. What about Hitler and Stalin? Weren’t they atheists?

Chapter 8: What’s Wrong with Religion? Why Be So Hostiles?

Fundamentalism and the subversion of science. The dark side of absolutism. Faith and homosexuality. Faith and the sanctity of human life. The Great Beethoven Fallacy. How ‘moderation’ in faith fosters fanaticism.

Chapter 9: Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion

Physical and mental abuse. In defence of children. An educational scandal. Consciousness-raising again. Religious education as a part of literary culture.

Chapter 10: A Much Needed Gap?

Binker. Consolation. Inspiration. The mother of all burkas.

THINK BIG. START SMALL. GO DEEP.