Books about religion.

[Samurai]

Hi all.

I want to recommend some good books about religions.

1. The World's Religions: Our great wisdom traditions - Huston Smith.
2.Buddha - Karen Armstrong.
3. Introducing Islam: A graphic guide - Ziauddin Sardar.

4.The history of the world religions - David S. Noss.
5. Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why - Bart D. Ehrman.

6. Islam: Past, Present and Future - Hans Kung
7. The Bible, the Quran and Science: The Holy Scriptures examined in the light of modern knowledge - Maurice Bucaille.
8. God: The evidence: The reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a postsecular world - Patrick Glynn.


You can buy these books in amazon.com, abebooks.com or from other sites that sell books.

 

[Samurai]

Does anyobody else have good books to recommend about religion?

 

[rockstarwife628]

Oh, I second so many of these recommendations - Huston Smith is one of the greatest authors on religion I've ever read, and Karen Armstrong is my absolute favorite.

I'd also recommend:

The Evolution of God by Rober Write
Anything by John Shelby Spong or Brian McLaren
A World Without Islam by Graham E Fuller
Peace Be Upon You : The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence by Zachary Karabell
Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus by Robin Meyers

There are probably more that I could think of, but those are the ones that I get off the top of my head.

 

[Samurai]

Thanks for your book recommendations

I will check out those books.

 

[Penumbra]

God: A Biography, by Jack Miles

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
Rebel Buddha by Dzogchen Ponlop

 

[Samurai]

Hi all

Did you know that the Quran and the Bible, is compatible with science? If you are interested in learning more about this topic, you should read a book by Maurice Bucaille, a famous french Scientist. You can download this book for free, in the link below.

The Bible, The Quran, and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined In The Light Of Modern Knowledge, by Maurice Bucaille.

http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/BibleQuranScience.pdf

 

[Samurai]

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
Rebel Buddha by Dzogchen Ponlop

Richard Dawkins is not objective when it comes to religion. He takes the worst of religion, and compares it with the best of science. His works are therefore not objective.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Richard Dawkins is not objective when it comes to religion. He takes the worst of religion, and compares it with the best of science. His works are therefore not objective.

And the worst of science would be...what? Science is a tool, nothing more. Religion claims to be more than a tool, and therefore has larger consequences.

 

[Samurai]

Many people believe that science can explain everything. But that's not true. Science can not explain everything. Science has its limitations:

1. Science can not tell us what happens when after a person is dead.

2. Science can not stop time.

3. Science can not tell what is moral or not.

4. Science can not measure human personality/soul.

5. Science can not create life. It can not even create a living cell from nothing.

Humans need both science and religion. The things which science can not explain, can be illuminated by spiritual scriptures like the Quran, the Bible, and the Vedas. Religion and science complement each other. This reminds me of a quote from Einstein.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science is Blind"
- Albert Einstein.

 

[Samurai]

And the worst of science would be...what? Science is a tool, nothing more. Religion claims to be more than a tool, and therefore has larger consequences.

Here are some expamples of the worst of science:

1) Genetically modified food. This has been proven to be dangerous for the environment and the ecosystem.

2) The idea that fluoride in the water is good for you. The fact is that fluoride actually is bad for health when people drink it.

3) Atomic bomb. Without the atomic bomb, made by scientists, the tragedy of Hiroshima would not have happened.

So if you compare the worst of religion, with the worst of science. There is almost no difference between them.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Many people believe that science can explain everything. But that's not true. Science can not explain everything. Science has its limitations:

1. Science can not tell us what happens when after a person is dead.

2. Science can not stop time.

3. Science can not tell what is moral or not.

4. Science can not measure human personality/soul.

5. Science can not create life. It can not even create a living cell from nothing.

Humans need both science and religion. The things which science can not explain, can be illuminated by spiritual scriptures like the Quran, the Bible, and the Vedas. Religion and science complement each other. This reminds me of a quote from Einstein.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science is Blind"
- Albert Einstein.

Give me a minute to work my laugh out...ah better.

1. Yes it can, but without your precious fairy tale of a soul and an afterlife, you will not accept it.

2. No one can. To stop time means to stop everything, even the electrical signals in your brain. Even if you could stop time, you couldn't do anything with it, and you wouldn't even know you had done it.

3. See my suggestion "The Moral Landscape".

4. Again, there is no evidence let alone proof of a soul. Your wishful thinking has no say on reality.

5. Science has been able to produce RNA in the lab by, to put it in super-layman's terms, "electrocuting mud".
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

And for your last bit, humans need knowledge. As Bertrand Russell put it,

"In former days, men sold themselves to the Devil to acquire magical powers. Nowadays they acquire those powers from science, and find themselves compelled to become devils. There is no hope for the world unless power can be tamed, and brought into the service, not of this or that group of fanatical tyrants, but of the whole human race, white and yellow and black, fascist and communist and democrat; for science has made it inevitable that all must live or all must die".

Knowledge is not religion. Knowledge can be attained from anywhere. You seem to think that morals can only be pulled from religion. Guess who made those religions: we did! But, we have progressed so much farther than those old laws that claim slavery, rape, and beating people is God's will. Look at how bad governments run by the laws of the Quran are going. We can do so much better with the knowledge we have now.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Here are some expamples of the worst of science:

1) Genetically modified food. This has been proven to be dangerous for the environment and the ecosystem.

2) The idea fluoride in the water is good for you. The fact is that fluoride actually is bad for health when people drink it.

3) Atomic bomb. Without the atomic bomb, made by scientists, the tragedy of Hiroshima would not have happened.

So if you compare the worst of religion, with the worst of science. There is almost no difference between them.

1. I have never seen a science textbook that says "We can make modified food, therefore we should make modified food."

2. See above.

3. See above.

Now, compare that to your cherished holy books, that state:

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldy," they shouted, "go up baldy!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

You might say "these are Old Testament rules. Jesus revised the rulebook", meaning the perfect God changes his mind.

 

[Sunstone]

Richard Dawkins is not objective when it comes to religion. He takes the worst of religion, and compares it with the best of science. His works are therefore not objective.

Sure. And please be so good as to cite for me six errors of fact you've found Dawkins commit in "The God Delusion".

Failing that, why don't you cite the six worse cases of Dawkins comparing "the worse of religion with the best of science". Page and paragraph references, please.

Failing that, can you say, "I just got myself caught smearing a man's reputation?"

 

[Sunstone]

Hi all.

I want to recommend some good books about religions.

1. The World's Religions: Our great wisdom traditions - Huston Smith.
2.Buddha - Karen Armstrong.
5. Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why - Bart D. Ehrman.

Those are classics. Smith has been the standard survey text since I was a kid taking courses in comparative religious studies 30 years ago.

God: A Biography, by Jack Miles

I've got to read him. I've seen you recommend him some other place, too. I'll bet if you like him, he's damnably good.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

Dawkins is a gentleman and a scholar, often smeared.

Harris is at least a scholar, but no gentleman. He advocates the use of torture against terrorists, for instance. I suppose there are ways in which all people have stupid woven into their smart.

But why didn't you recommend "The End of Faith" by Harris.

As for myself:

In Gods We Trust, Scott Atran. On the evolutionary origin of one kind of human religiosity. That is, religious religiosity.

Why God Won't Go Away, Newberg and D'Aquili. On the research into a second kind of human religiosity. That is, mystical religiosity.

I also am especially fond of Pema Chodron, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Joseph Campbell, Elaine Pagels, and my own best blog posts. Damnably good, the latter. Damnably good.

 

[bain-druie]

Regarding the OP:

I second Sunstone on Joseph Campbell.

Pagans have a reputation for not being literary, and also not giving thought to traditional concepts of morality. This is somewhat deserved, perhaps, but we do have some good books. One of my favorites is Emma Restall Orr's 'Living with Honour: A Pagan Ethics'.

 

[Storm]

Why Religion Matters by Huston Smith

Why God Won't Go Away by Dr.s Andrew Newberg & Eugene D'Aquili

The Battle For God by Karen Armstrong

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Those are classics. Smith has been the standard survey text since I was a kid taking courses in comparative religious studies 30 years ago.



I've got to read him. I've seen you recommend him some other place, too. I'll bet if you like him, he's damnably good.



Dawkins is a gentleman and a scholar, often smeared.

Harris is at least a scholar, but no gentleman. He advocates the use of torture against terrorists, for instance. I suppose there are ways in which all people have stupid woven into their smart.

But why didn't you recommend "The End of Faith" by Harris.

I never read the God Delusion actually, but I figured this topic needed counter-balance.

I didn't read "The End of Faith" because I didn't care about his views on religion. Plus I'm getting enough of them in "The Moral Landscape". I just wanted to see his attempts to circumvent the is-ought problem and deliver some science-based morality.

 

[Sunstone]

I never read the God Delusion actually, but I figured this topic needed counter-balance.

I didn't read "The End of Faith" because I didn't care about his views on religion. Plus I'm getting enough of them in "The Moral Landscape". I just wanted to see his attempts to circumvent the is-ought problem and deliver some science-based morality.

I like what Harris is doing in the lab. His MRI studies. I haven't heard enough of them yet. Seems he's not too prolific when it comes to reporting things.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I like what Harris is doing in the lab. His MRI studies. I haven't heard enough of them yet. Seems he's not too prolific when it comes to reporting things.

Well, apparently it's not too hard to get past the is-ought problem if you have a goal. "This is like this, therefore it ought to be like this" is a fallacy, but "If you do this, this is the result, therefore if you want that result, you should do this" makes perfect sense. His goal is "the greatest happiness for everyone", so it wasn't hard at all to leap it.