Stats for nerds
2recommend
3mentions
3people
2016–2025years
67% recommend33% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Rather than engage in a conversation that will wind up being ultimately a superficial argument or confirmation of your current stance I recommend a book. It's called "Theology and Sanity" by Theologian Frank Sheed of Australia.
Arguing deep topics with a few lines of text every few hours is no way to be persuaded. But it will all too easily confirm your current ideas simply because you will get tired of it and you will conclude that nobody has any valid arguments against your position. This is why you have to get really serious about it and study under people who have "been there and done that" already. You will have to take the time to go through the entire process it cannot be done online.
It is strange that Atheists immediately discount philophical, theological and other arguments. For example, personal experiences and accepting the testimony and authority of those you trust is perfectly rational. It's not fullproof but it's still rational to do so, because there are many sorts of things that we have to accept as true based on such evidence.
- A Canticle for Leibowitz - Walter Miller (recommended SF classic)
The Chronicles of Narnia - C.S. Lewis (an old favorite, recommended)
The Name of the Rose - Umberto Eco (some interesting parts, but overall a disappointment)
Theology and Sanity - Frank Sheed (recommended; a very written description of the Catholic faith; weaknesses are it's long and it's aimed to a mid 20th c. audience)
Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees - Peter Kreeft (recommended; a good exposition of Blaise Pascal's thought)
Catholicism: A journey to the heart of the faith - Robert Barron (recommended; a good explanation of Catholicism for the common person)
His Master's Voice - Stanislaw Lem (recommended; very intellectual look at the problem of first contact)
The Industries of the Future - Alec Ross (the robotics chapter is best; other parts are more light-weight; easy read)
Clouds of Witnesses - Dorothy Sayers (not my favorite Sayers mystery, but enjoyable)
A Study in Scarlet - Arthur Conan Doyle (recommended)
Why Gender Matters - Leonard Sax (recommended; most of the book is based on good science, but he does go out on a limb a time or two.)
Old School - Tobias Wolff (recommended; a world before widespread TV where high school boys actually got excited about literature)
Infinite Space, Infinite God - Karina and Robert Fabian editors (story quality varies; I enjoyed some of them)
The Sign of Four - Arthur Conan Doyle (recommended)
On Stranger Tides - Tim Powers (recommended; I love Powers, but Anubis Gates and Last Call are better. Still, if you like pirates you should like this)
The Art of Worldly Wisdom - Baltasar Gracian (interesting)
Aquinas at Prayer: the Bible, Mysticism, and Poetry - Paul Murray (recommended; this shows a different side of Thomas Aquinas)
Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy - Mortimer Adler (recommended; I almost think this should be required reading)
The Pilgrim's Regress - C.S. Lewis (I enjoyed it, but the ideas Lewis argues against are somewhat dated.)
Edit for formatting
– Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity, 1946To many the idea of bringing the intellect fully into action in religion seems almost repellent. The intellect seems so cold and measured and measuring, and the will so warm and glowing. Indeed the joy of the will is always figured in terms of warmth – such words as ardor, fervor and the like come from Latin words for a fire burning: there is a fear that intellect can only damp down the fire. Many again who do not find the use of the intellect in religion actually repellent, regard it as at least unnecessary – at any rate for the layman – and possibly dangerous. One can, they say, love God without any very great study of doctrine. Indeed, they say, warming to their theme, some of the holiest people they know are quite ignorant. Plenty of theologians are not as holy as an old Irishman they have seen saying his Rosary. All this is so crammed with fallacy as to be hardly worth refuting. A man may be learned in dogma, and at the same time proud or greedy or cruel: knowledge does not supply for love if love is absent. Similarly, a virtuous man may be ignorant, but ignorance is not a virtue. It would be a strange God Who could be loved better by being known less. Love of God is not the same thing as knowledge of God; love of God is immeasurably more important than knowledge of God; but if a man loves God knowing a little about Him, he should love God more from knowing more about Him: for every new thing known about God is a new reason for loving Him. It is true that some get vast love from lesser knowledge; it is true even that some get vast light from lesser knowledge: for love helps sight. But sight helps love too. After all, the man who uses his intellect in religion is using it to see what is there. But the alternative to seeing what is there is either not seeing what is there, and this is darkness; or seeing what is not there, and this is error, derangement, a kind of double darkness. And it is unthinkable that darkness whether single or double should be preferred to light. Indeed light is the joy of the mind as warmth is the joy of the will. But warmth and light are both effects of fire, warmth fire as felt, light fire as seen (and seen by). It seems strange to value the one effect and not the other of that fire by which the Holy Ghost is figured to us. It is an odd delusion that one is warmer in the dark, that one can love God better in the dark.
Related
The Righteous Mind
94 recommend · 225
The God Delusion
41 recommend · 111
The mind illuminated
79 recommend · 163
Science and sanity
9 recommend · 30
Summa Theologica
10 recommend · 27
The Practicing Mind
11 recommend · 13
Orthodoxy
22 recommend · 44