Isaac's Meandering Musings

One of the things that I find most fascinating about studying the philosophy of religion is the sheer variety of arguments and the ingenuity of many of them. Most of the variety and ingenuity is on the side of the theists. This should not be surprising. It is much more difficult to prove a negative, as atheists need to do in order to show the rationality of their own position, therefore atheists typically prefer to focus on critiquing theistic arguments than on presenting arguments of their own. Some atheists, probably those who don't know any better, would argue the the multiplicity of theistic arguments shows how weak they are. The logic here is that, if a position is rational, you only need a few good arguments for that position. This many be true, and this is certainly what the vast majority of theistic philosophers over the centuries have thought, as well. For example, Thomas Aquinas listed only five arguments (his famous 'Five Ways') in his Summa Theologiae . (Thoug...

Below I have revised my previous list. This one is much a more thorough list, with a more detailed preamble. I'm certain that there many more scholarly books on the existence of God that are not on this list, but I am unaware of them. I have mainly included works can be divided into two groups: (1) works that have some historical significance to the debate on the existence of God; and (2) serious recent contributions to the debate. The works are listed chronologically. Most of the earlier works are included because of their historical significance. The more recently published works are included primarily because of their quality and in-depth discussion of the subject. For the most part, I have avoided listing popular works, as these typically lack the quality of more academic works. The works are divided into two columns: theist and atheist/agnostic. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the column with the most works listed is the list of theistic works, partly because theists have...

In my last post, I failed to clarify an important point. Coyne, in his argument, seems to be accusing theists of arguing that because science originated within a theistic context, theistic belief is necessary for science. Coyne then attempts to make a historical refutation of this claim. So far as I know, no historian has ever made the claim that theistic belief is necessary to do science. The historical point (or points) that they make, rather, is that (1) a full-blown scientific movement only originated once in history, within a theistic (specifically Christian) culture and, (2) that the religious beliefs of late medieval and early modern scientists inspired them in their exploration of science. Some historians would go further and argue that, (3) considering the fact that the proto-scientific practices that existed in the ancient Greek and medieval Islamic worlds foundered and never produced a truly scientific movement, in the sense we understand it today, therefore there was some...