What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #552
Philosophy of Religion: A Very Short Introduction
What is the philosophy of religion? How can we distinguish it from theology on the one hand and the psychology/sociology of religious belief on the other? What does it mean to describe God as "eternal"? And should religious people want there to be good arguments for the existence of God, or is religious belief only authentic in the absence of these good arguments?
In this Very Short Introduction Tim Bayne introduces the field of philosophy of religion, and engages with some of the most burning questions that philosophers discuss. Considering how "religion" should be defined, and whether we even need to be able to define it in order to engage in the philosophy of religion, he goes on to discuss whether the existence of God matters. Exploring the problem of evil, Bayne also debates the connection between faith and reason, and the related question of what role reason should play in religious contexts. Shedding light on the relationship between science and religion, Bayne finishes by considering the topics of reincarnation and the afterlife.
ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
In this Very Short Introduction Tim Bayne introduces the field of philosophy of religion, and engages with some of the most burning questions that philosophers discuss. Considering how "religion" should be defined, and whether we even need to be able to define it in order to engage in the philosophy of religion, he goes on to discuss whether the existence of God matters. Exploring the problem of evil, Bayne also debates the connection between faith and reason, and the related question of what role reason should play in religious contexts. Shedding light on the relationship between science and religion, Bayne finishes by considering the topics of reincarnation and the afterlife.
ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
160 pages, Paperback
First published February 13, 2018
61 people are currently reading
533 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
September 25, 2018
A lucid, balanced, engaged and up-to-date introduction to the contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Chapter 6 of the book, entitled 'The Roots of Religious Belief', is rather special. It briefly discusses how the psychological, sociological and neurobiological theories of the origin of religion might be used to discredit the epistemic reliability of religious truth claims. To my knowledge, including such a discussion in an introductory book about the analytic philosophy of religion is not at all common. The book is also relevantly sensitive to the non-Christian religious traditions such as Islam and Hinduism.
June 14, 2020
Chapter 1: What is the philosophy of religion?
Chapter 2: The concept of God
Chapter 3: Arguments for the existence of God
Chapter 4: Divine hiddenness and the nature of faith
Chapter 5: The problem of evil
Chapter 6: The roots of religious belief
Chapter 7: Speaking of God
Chapter 8: The afterlife
Chapter 2: The concept of God
Chapter 3: Arguments for the existence of God
Chapter 4: Divine hiddenness and the nature of faith
Chapter 5: The problem of evil
Chapter 6: The roots of religious belief
Chapter 7: Speaking of God
Chapter 8: The afterlife
September 5, 2025
I thought it was cute whenever he made little alliterations for lists of creation but a lot of the philosophy was lost on me. Sorry Dr. Massad.
March 13, 2019
Jonathan Pageau and his brother did a video together, some time ago. During the stream, they said that in higher education, the courses are basically meant to undermine belief in God. This is basically a readily accessible instantiation of exactly that. Philosophy of religion as "now let me tell you why God doesn't exist".
September 4, 2020
Clear, concise and informative
May 7, 2021
no se pues me gusto, pero a la misma vez no me dio mucho nuevo. si que tambien el autor era ateo, entonces me da que a mi confirmation bias le gusto mucho.
habla de los que es philosophy of religion: el estudio de los problemas concerned con la religion viendolos desde la lense logica y filosofica, sin utilizar la biblia y el quran por ejemplo como "sources".
tambien habla del concept of god y la maneras diferentes en el que es pintado depende de la religion. puede ser o algo que se ve en todo o como un being eterno. habla del problem of evil, que habia pensado uselessly subjetivo, pero gracias al libro me he dado cuenta que natural evil como disease o earthquakes o el suffering d elos animales no se puede justificar tampoco en los terms de free will argument o el argument de greater goods.
dentro de natural theology, habla del (kamal) cosmological argument, el designer, el ontological argument y de personal experience, que como conclusion dice de como no son irrefutable proofs como lo son los mathematical proofs, pero son capaces de hacer a alguien que ya es religious assert u belief.
habla del pshycology de como los humanos evolutionary somos likely de belief aquello que no es real, que a veces es advantageous para escapar un predator por ejemplo. pero una persona religiosa puede responder a este para decir que dios el mismo fue quien hizo que los humanos esten inclined a believe tan easily.
compara realism vs antirealism, donde los libros son literarios o como metaforas y feelings.
y finalmente el afterlife, con reincarnation, heaven or hell, o nuestra transformacion en algun tipo de cosmic deity nosotros mismos. es posible tambien que esta sea una de las razones que religion nos viene tan natural, la idea de escapar la muerte como sea posible
habla de los que es philosophy of religion: el estudio de los problemas concerned con la religion viendolos desde la lense logica y filosofica, sin utilizar la biblia y el quran por ejemplo como "sources".
tambien habla del concept of god y la maneras diferentes en el que es pintado depende de la religion. puede ser o algo que se ve en todo o como un being eterno. habla del problem of evil, que habia pensado uselessly subjetivo, pero gracias al libro me he dado cuenta que natural evil como disease o earthquakes o el suffering d elos animales no se puede justificar tampoco en los terms de free will argument o el argument de greater goods.
dentro de natural theology, habla del (kamal) cosmological argument, el designer, el ontological argument y de personal experience, que como conclusion dice de como no son irrefutable proofs como lo son los mathematical proofs, pero son capaces de hacer a alguien que ya es religious assert u belief.
habla del pshycology de como los humanos evolutionary somos likely de belief aquello que no es real, que a veces es advantageous para escapar un predator por ejemplo. pero una persona religiosa puede responder a este para decir que dios el mismo fue quien hizo que los humanos esten inclined a believe tan easily.
compara realism vs antirealism, donde los libros son literarios o como metaforas y feelings.
y finalmente el afterlife, con reincarnation, heaven or hell, o nuestra transformacion en algun tipo de cosmic deity nosotros mismos. es posible tambien que esta sea una de las razones que religion nos viene tan natural, la idea de escapar la muerte como sea posible
April 18, 2022
A very good, objective, but somehow brief introduction!
January 3, 2022
Like all Very Short Introductions I’ve read this past year, this was no exception in that it was a concise and accessible introduction to the field in question.
One really can’t hope to commentate or discuss questions of religion, the existence of god, etc. without having a basic outline of the questions and arguments philosophy of religion addresses. That was my goal in reading this book and I think did a great job at fulfilling it. The book covered all the major topics such as the arguments for the existence if god, the nature of faith, the origins of religious belief, etc. The chapter discussing the problem of evil was particularly well done. The author presents opposing viewpoints without an obvious atheist/theist slant which was really helpful when approaching these topics with an open mind. Overall this book would be great in providing a good outline for those who want to explore the field and the questions philosophers of religion ask more in depth.
One really can’t hope to commentate or discuss questions of religion, the existence of god, etc. without having a basic outline of the questions and arguments philosophy of religion addresses. That was my goal in reading this book and I think did a great job at fulfilling it. The book covered all the major topics such as the arguments for the existence if god, the nature of faith, the origins of religious belief, etc. The chapter discussing the problem of evil was particularly well done. The author presents opposing viewpoints without an obvious atheist/theist slant which was really helpful when approaching these topics with an open mind. Overall this book would be great in providing a good outline for those who want to explore the field and the questions philosophers of religion ask more in depth.
August 7, 2019
One of Oxford University Press's many "A Very Short Introductions," this one fits bill. It is a very short introduction to the philosophy of religion, focusing on a definition of that discipline, arguments for the existence of God, the problem of divine hiddenness, the nature of faith, the problem of evil, the roots of religious belief, language used of God, and the afterlife. I don't know anything about the author other than reading this book, and it's fairly clear to me that Bayne seems to tilt towards atheism or agnosticism. (That philosophers of religion can be non-believers might seem odd, but it's not that unusual.) However, Bayne never makes his positions clear, which is a mark against this book, in my opinion. The reason I say that is because it's impossible to be neutral with respect to a subject like religion. One can be relatively objective with respect to some arcane subjects that don't truly affect how one lives. (Neutrality of pure objectivity is impossible.) But everyone has something at stake when it comes to religion. I would rather the author make his position very clear up front, and then present his case, or try to be fair to various sides of a debate. It doesn't seem like Bayne has done much here to accurately present some philosophers of religion, namely evangelical Christians.
Bearing that in mind, at least this book does give the reader an introduction to the discipline that is philosophy of religion. The reader will get a sense of what is argued by philosophers of religion. Though Bayne doesn't properly cite quotations (which is annoying for someone like me), he does provide suggestions for further reading, and I learned of a few books that were new to me.
Bearing that in mind, at least this book does give the reader an introduction to the discipline that is philosophy of religion. The reader will get a sense of what is argued by philosophers of religion. Though Bayne doesn't properly cite quotations (which is annoying for someone like me), he does provide suggestions for further reading, and I learned of a few books that were new to me.
March 27, 2020
I really liked this book. But you should know why I liked it.
It because it shows very well what a bunch of fucking bullshit philosophy of religion is. Are there grown up people that think about these things for real?
To start with, you have to be a beliver to take this serious. Second, philosophy is about wonder and asking questions; religion is about dogma and faith. These things dont mix. If you try to give rational and logical ideas to why a god is real you will fail. Religion is about faith not about rationality. So if you want to belive, fine, do that. But dont try to dress your faith up in philosophical clothes to make it look all rational, because it will only look like a clown.
It because it shows very well what a bunch of fucking bullshit philosophy of religion is. Are there grown up people that think about these things for real?
To start with, you have to be a beliver to take this serious. Second, philosophy is about wonder and asking questions; religion is about dogma and faith. These things dont mix. If you try to give rational and logical ideas to why a god is real you will fail. Religion is about faith not about rationality. So if you want to belive, fine, do that. But dont try to dress your faith up in philosophical clothes to make it look all rational, because it will only look like a clown.
January 17, 2023
I listened to the unabridged 3-hour audio version of this title (read by Charles Constant, Tantor Audio, 2018).
This volume in Oxford's valuable "Very Short Introduction" series, currently spanning hundreds of titles and providing excellent entry points into many diverse topics, is quite comprehensive, despite its small size.
Philosophy of religion isn't concerned with religion as a social, cultural, or political phenomenon but with philosophical questions that arise from religion and belief or disbelief in God. There is a great deal of overlap between philosophy of religion and theology, the latter being confined to a particular religious tradition in contrast to the former's generality. Religions are different in their attitudes toward philosophy, some embracing philosophical reflection; several being hostile or ambivalent; others considering themselves philosophical systems rather than religions.
Early in the book, we learn the names of philosophers who have contributed to discussions on philosophy of religion.
Christian philosophers: St. Augustine of Hippo [354-430], St. Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274], John Duns Scotus [1266-1308], William of Ockham [1287-1347], Rene Descartes [1596-1650], John Locke [1632-1704], Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz [1646-1716]
Jewish philosophers: Maimonides [1135-1204], Gersonides [1288-1344], Spinoza [1632-1677]
Muslim philosophers: Al-Kindi [~800-870], Al-Farabi [~870-~950], Al-Ghazali [~1056-1111], Ibn Rushd or Averroes [1126-1198], Ibn Sina or Avicenna [~970-1037]
Some think that religion and philosophy should be kept apart, given that the question of God's existence or non-existence cannot be settled by philosophical arguments. Bayne considers this view, held, among others, by Immanuel Kant, as counterproductive. "The philosophy of religion may not be able to provide definitive answers to the questions that it asks, but it would not be unreasonable to hope that it can at least illuminate them" [p. 4].
The definition of God as omnipotent and benevolent raises many questions and contradictions. For example, how does one explain evil? Was God not able to eliminate evil? Then, how is He omnipotent? Or, did He not want to eliminate it? The latter option casts doubt on His benevolence. The oft-offered explanation that God created evil as a test for us, so that we can reject it on our own free will, does not resolve the problem. Humans can exercise free will in choosing between multiple good options, so evil isn't really needed for free will to exist and be properly exercised. Additionally, if we need God to explain the universe and its creation, who created God? The claim that God is an infinite and ever-present being creates its own questions and contradictions.
A related question concerns the nature of faith and its relationship to reason. Faith has been equated with belief, trust, and confidence. Why we believe or trust something or someone may not be based on reason. Faith and reason can coexist harmoniously, especially if faith is viewed as malleable in the face of empirical evidence. When faith and reason lead to contradictory propositions, real conflict of the kind that has afflicted human societies for many centuries begins.
The value of this volume as a gateway into the philosophy of religion is enhanced by Bayne providing references for each chapter as well as an extensive "For Further Reading" section at the end.
This volume in Oxford's valuable "Very Short Introduction" series, currently spanning hundreds of titles and providing excellent entry points into many diverse topics, is quite comprehensive, despite its small size.
Philosophy of religion isn't concerned with religion as a social, cultural, or political phenomenon but with philosophical questions that arise from religion and belief or disbelief in God. There is a great deal of overlap between philosophy of religion and theology, the latter being confined to a particular religious tradition in contrast to the former's generality. Religions are different in their attitudes toward philosophy, some embracing philosophical reflection; several being hostile or ambivalent; others considering themselves philosophical systems rather than religions.
Early in the book, we learn the names of philosophers who have contributed to discussions on philosophy of religion.
Christian philosophers: St. Augustine of Hippo [354-430], St. Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274], John Duns Scotus [1266-1308], William of Ockham [1287-1347], Rene Descartes [1596-1650], John Locke [1632-1704], Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz [1646-1716]
Jewish philosophers: Maimonides [1135-1204], Gersonides [1288-1344], Spinoza [1632-1677]
Muslim philosophers: Al-Kindi [~800-870], Al-Farabi [~870-~950], Al-Ghazali [~1056-1111], Ibn Rushd or Averroes [1126-1198], Ibn Sina or Avicenna [~970-1037]
Some think that religion and philosophy should be kept apart, given that the question of God's existence or non-existence cannot be settled by philosophical arguments. Bayne considers this view, held, among others, by Immanuel Kant, as counterproductive. "The philosophy of religion may not be able to provide definitive answers to the questions that it asks, but it would not be unreasonable to hope that it can at least illuminate them" [p. 4].
The definition of God as omnipotent and benevolent raises many questions and contradictions. For example, how does one explain evil? Was God not able to eliminate evil? Then, how is He omnipotent? Or, did He not want to eliminate it? The latter option casts doubt on His benevolence. The oft-offered explanation that God created evil as a test for us, so that we can reject it on our own free will, does not resolve the problem. Humans can exercise free will in choosing between multiple good options, so evil isn't really needed for free will to exist and be properly exercised. Additionally, if we need God to explain the universe and its creation, who created God? The claim that God is an infinite and ever-present being creates its own questions and contradictions.
A related question concerns the nature of faith and its relationship to reason. Faith has been equated with belief, trust, and confidence. Why we believe or trust something or someone may not be based on reason. Faith and reason can coexist harmoniously, especially if faith is viewed as malleable in the face of empirical evidence. When faith and reason lead to contradictory propositions, real conflict of the kind that has afflicted human societies for many centuries begins.
The value of this volume as a gateway into the philosophy of religion is enhanced by Bayne providing references for each chapter as well as an extensive "For Further Reading" section at the end.
April 19, 2018
This is my first experience with the “Very Short Introduction” series from Oxford University Press, and I have to be honest in saying that my first impression was one of confusion. The book’s physical format is small, a pocket-sized 4 ½” by 7”. If you need a pocket size reference on religious philosophy to carry around with you, I thought, either you are being somewhat pretentious, or else you are doing it wrong.
First impressions certainly are not final judgments, however, and I have to admit that I quite liked Tim Bayne’s concise overview of philosophical approaches to religion and theology. My previous exposures to religious philosophy have been both insightful and at other times incomprehensible. At the most basic level, religious philosophy can be perceived as an intellectual game, positing arguments for certain viewpoints, and then reviewing all the arguments as to why that particular viewpoint is wrong. At its most incomprehensible, vocabulary and the worst kind of academic writing seem designed to frighten off all but those already steeped in the discipline. This short book seemed to hit the sweet spot for me, not steeped in jargon nor overly detached from reality.
Details aren't as important here as the overall goal of these Very Short Introduction series from Oxford University Press is to give a reader enough to create a deeper interest in a topic, with the hope that the reader will want to find out more and build on the foundation provided in these short introductions. Arguments for and against the existence of God? That's in here, along with thinking about what is meant by God as creator of the Earth, and whether natural theology precludes having faith (Spoiler: It does not.).
Bayne wisely avoids drawing conclusions, leaving that up to the reader, and is mostly interested in exploring the very basics of complicated ideas that are pertinent for all major schools of religion, in hopes that you will find an excuse to dig a little deeper, and go beyond the most basic elements. Short, concise, with lively writing, I think you will find this particular title much more interseting and engaging that you might think at first glance.
First impressions certainly are not final judgments, however, and I have to admit that I quite liked Tim Bayne’s concise overview of philosophical approaches to religion and theology. My previous exposures to religious philosophy have been both insightful and at other times incomprehensible. At the most basic level, religious philosophy can be perceived as an intellectual game, positing arguments for certain viewpoints, and then reviewing all the arguments as to why that particular viewpoint is wrong. At its most incomprehensible, vocabulary and the worst kind of academic writing seem designed to frighten off all but those already steeped in the discipline. This short book seemed to hit the sweet spot for me, not steeped in jargon nor overly detached from reality.
Details aren't as important here as the overall goal of these Very Short Introduction series from Oxford University Press is to give a reader enough to create a deeper interest in a topic, with the hope that the reader will want to find out more and build on the foundation provided in these short introductions. Arguments for and against the existence of God? That's in here, along with thinking about what is meant by God as creator of the Earth, and whether natural theology precludes having faith (Spoiler: It does not.).
Bayne wisely avoids drawing conclusions, leaving that up to the reader, and is mostly interested in exploring the very basics of complicated ideas that are pertinent for all major schools of religion, in hopes that you will find an excuse to dig a little deeper, and go beyond the most basic elements. Short, concise, with lively writing, I think you will find this particular title much more interseting and engaging that you might think at first glance.
April 17, 2022
3.5 звезди
Слушах я за записване. Запълни времето.. Не съм пейвъл много атеншън.
Второ слушане дори 4 звезди е ок.
Ще взема скоро сериозно да седна и да прочета някоя хубава книга за философията, в частност метафилософията. Защото не съм много сигурен какво точно е философия. Или поне за какво го имат философите това дето го правят.
Нещо, което съм забелязал и при други книги - сещам се за пример книгата на Соуел Знания и решения, но и една леко дървено написана СОЦ наупно-популярна книжка за ВРЕМЕТО, че някой път дори само темите и въпросите, която се обсъжда е достатъчно интересни, че човек просто ги използва като един вид гид към мисли. Т.е. книгата си пее, аз си мисля за темата, която автора коментира, без особено да му се впечатлявам от неговите идеи... При философските книги но е би нещо такова е целта .. това е преувеличено, но наистина някои книги, които са са феномени от реалността, които човек няма да седне да се замисля в ежедневието си, и да оцени тяхната прекрасният когато си вземе книга която е от събрани мисли и разсъждения описани от друг човек, може да я използва да се разходи... да види какви мисли ще му дойдат- хем чути от автора, хем такива каквито на теб ти идват докато слушаш и "мислиш" за дадения феномен.
Нямам проблем с философията .. като малък имах повече проблем... Сега вече по-скоро нямам... Имам проблем с философстването за несъществуващи неща, като в случая това не е така и вярванията ми са - избрах да вярвам, че бог съществува.
Тъй че тази книга такова философстване на такава тема нямам против. Интересно ми е.
Определено като, че има нещо ценно във философията, макар все още да не мога да кажа със сигурност какво е то.
Има и още нещо.
Явно помъдрявам, защото не бях съгласен с някои от нещата написани в книгата... Вече не помня какви, но това което си спомням е че когато в 12ти клас (преди около 7 години) , когато бях тепърва станал яростен атеист и тръгнах да чета учебника по философия, а и няколко години след това, когато четох страниците в Уикипедия на различни философи бях съгласен със всичко... Някак си идеите ми звучаха правдоподобно... Дори когато са взаимно изключващи се...
Защо?
Защото нямах никакъв опит...
Сега вече 7 години по-късно не знам дали имам много опит за възрастта си, но поне знам, че опита е най-важното нещо, за да човек е адекватен и да има връзка с реалността...
Честният опит
Няма значение колко е умен, няма значение колко чете, има значение, колко честен опит има със света.
Честен е опита на човек, който се е отказал от навика да лъже.
Специално по философия без да чета мисли и да гадателстеам, но повечето съвременни философи са супер мега стерилни хора, които имат по-малък опит и от мен.
А човек на база на "разум" (тази илюзия) не може да прецени коя идея отговаря на реалността или не, освен, ако не се е сблъсквал едно в едно с въпросната реалност.
Та философите днес са по-сериозни от мен... Това почти сигурно мога да го кажа...
Което е срамно... За цялото поле...
Смисъл не би трябвало да е нормално човек на 25 години да е несъгласен с философ от Оксфорд... Който има кой знае колко специализации, изписани и прочетени книги, статии.
Но проблема е че такива хора всъщност никога не са живяли на село, например... Всъщност никога не са излизали от академията - детска градина, пред училищна, училище, гимназия, колеж, университет, преподавателска професия...
Къде този стерилен човек е видял свят...
Както и да е и преди съм писал за това как интелектуалците и обществото на Соуел вероятно много, няма смисъл да се повтарям .
Пак я слушах за заспиване. Обръщах повече внимание. Беше ми приятно прекарването.
Аргументът за злото, ако го чуя още няколко пъти ще получа тикове сигурно... Тва е най-тъпия аргумент за момента. Но хора, които не вярват в свободата и волята е нормално да го използват...
Приятно слушане беше, мислих си и тересно неща докато слушах...
Може би един ден ще разбера дали рилсоофията има друга полза освен това ..
Книгата определено е хубава за хора, които искат сериозни размисшения по тема религия - в частност етичен монотеизъм какъвто е юдеизма, христянството и исляма.
Понеже това е философия, както различни други философии тази приема на дни неща за верни и тръгва да мисли, ако са така какво би означавало.
В случая тази книга би била интересна и за атеист може би.. щото не настоява, че бог съществува, а казва - ако приемем, че бог съществува и после мисли приемайки това за така... Това е хубаво упражнение.
Да минеш през мисли, прекарани през парадигма, особено, която е различна от твоите.
Как ще евангелизираш наивните вярващи в атеизъм, нихилистичен хедонизъм и комунизъм, ако не разбираш през каква парадигма те мислят?
За това другари атеисти тази книга би била интересна и за вас.
Не съм проучвал автора, нищо чудно и той самия да е атеист.
Почти сигурен съм, че чух казано по сериозен начин без подигравки коментиране на "аргумента за злото" вътре, а само един човек тотално загубил връзка с реалността, лишен от какъвто и да е полезен честен личен опит с нея, и цялостно дълбоко объркан, като един атеист би използвал този аргумент без да усети цялостен кринджгазъм по цялото тяло.
Не сериозно хора... Ако бог съществува и е добър Защо има зло, ако бог е добър?
Защо ли?
Може би защото Бог е дал свобода на избора и свободна воля както на хората така и на другите десийжън мейкъри в реалността и когато един десиджън мейкър е свободен той е свободен да върши, както добро, така и зло.
Т.е. злото не идва от бога..
Идеята е че бог не е вселенски диктатор, който контролира мислите и решения ти, а напротив!
Кое му е толкова трудното..
Но истината е че атеистите (все пак и аз съм бил от това племе преди да осъзная, че са дълбоко заблудени хора и да стана агностик, и в последствие да избера да повярвам в Бог) изобщо не искат истина, не търсят истина, не търсят истинско разбиране. Който търси намира. Те не търсят това и няма как да го намерят. Те търсят начин да се правят на интересни, начин да се покажат, начин да демонстрират превъзходството си. И също да оправдаят паразитния си начин на живот. И да за маскират обърквснето си.
Освен Сам Харис не знам дали има друг известен атеист, който реално да цени поне говорейки за това - истината, и нелъженето.
А един човек, който има навика да лъже никакъв интелектуалец не може да бъде.
Поне не и такъв дет да има контакт с реалността.
Естествено можем, както социолозите да говорим за групи как действат и взимат решения, или за демокрацията или за народа, но такива неща не съществуват..
Социолозите не знаят, че не решенията в групите не съществуват, но това не им пречи да ги коментират и дисертации да пишат за тях.
Книжката беше хубав кратък очерк, по който се разходих, от време на време го слушах, от време на време просто си мислих по зададените теми, няколко пъти кринджнах щото автора говореше глупости, некореспондиращи с реалността, но кат цяло 4/5 мисля е честна оценка...
Пък и все пак вече втори път я слушам.
Слушах я за записване. Запълни времето.. Не съм пейвъл много атеншън.
Второ слушане дори 4 звезди е ок.
Ще взема скоро сериозно да седна и да прочета някоя хубава книга за философията, в частност метафилософията. Защото не съм много сигурен какво точно е философия. Или поне за какво го имат философите това дето го правят.
Нещо, което съм забелязал и при други книги - сещам се за пример книгата на Соуел Знания и решения, но и една леко дървено написана СОЦ наупно-популярна книжка за ВРЕМЕТО, че някой път дори само темите и въпросите, която се обсъжда е достатъчно интересни, че човек просто ги използва като един вид гид към мисли. Т.е. книгата си пее, аз си мисля за темата, която автора коментира, без особено да му се впечатлявам от неговите идеи... При философските книги но е би нещо такова е целта .. това е преувеличено, но наистина някои книги, които са са феномени от реалността, които човек няма да седне да се замисля в ежедневието си, и да оцени тяхната прекрасният когато си вземе книга която е от събрани мисли и разсъждения описани от друг човек, може да я използва да се разходи... да види какви мисли ще му дойдат- хем чути от автора, хем такива каквито на теб ти идват докато слушаш и "мислиш" за дадения феномен.
Нямам проблем с философията .. като малък имах повече проблем... Сега вече по-скоро нямам... Имам проблем с философстването за несъществуващи неща, като в случая това не е така и вярванията ми са - избрах да вярвам, че бог съществува.
Тъй че тази книга такова философстване на такава тема нямам против. Интересно ми е.
Определено като, че има нещо ценно във философията, макар все още да не мога да кажа със сигурност какво е то.
Има и още нещо.
Явно помъдрявам, защото не бях съгласен с някои от нещата написани в книгата... Вече не помня какви, но това което си спомням е че когато в 12ти клас (преди около 7 години) , когато бях тепърва станал яростен атеист и тръгнах да чета учебника по философия, а и няколко години след това, когато четох страниците в Уикипедия на различни философи бях съгласен със всичко... Някак си идеите ми звучаха правдоподобно... Дори когато са взаимно изключващи се...
Защо?
Защото нямах никакъв опит...
Сега вече 7 години по-късно не знам дали имам много опит за възрастта си, но поне знам, че опита е най-важното нещо, за да човек е адекватен и да има връзка с реалността...
Честният опит
Няма значение колко е умен, няма значение колко чете, има значение, колко честен опит има със света.
Честен е опита на човек, който се е отказал от навика да лъже.
Специално по философия без да чета мисли и да гадателстеам, но повечето съвременни философи са супер мега стерилни хора, които имат по-малък опит и от мен.
А човек на база на "разум" (тази илюзия) не може да прецени коя идея отговаря на реалността или не, освен, ако не се е сблъсквал едно в едно с въпросната реалност.
Та философите днес са по-сериозни от мен... Това почти сигурно мога да го кажа...
Което е срамно... За цялото поле...
Смисъл не би трябвало да е нормално човек на 25 години да е несъгласен с философ от Оксфорд... Който има кой знае колко специализации, изписани и прочетени книги, статии.
Но проблема е че такива хора всъщност никога не са живяли на село, например... Всъщност никога не са излизали от академията - детска градина, пред училищна, училище, гимназия, колеж, университет, преподавателска професия...
Къде този стерилен човек е видял свят...
Както и да е и преди съм писал за това как интелектуалците и обществото на Соуел вероятно много, няма смисъл да се повтарям .
Пак я слушах за заспиване. Обръщах повече внимание. Беше ми приятно прекарването.
Аргументът за злото, ако го чуя още няколко пъти ще получа тикове сигурно... Тва е най-тъпия аргумент за момента. Но хора, които не вярват в свободата и волята е нормално да го използват...
Приятно слушане беше, мислих си и тересно неща докато слушах...
Може би един ден ще разбера дали рилсоофията има друга полза освен това ..
Книгата определено е хубава за хора, които искат сериозни размисшения по тема религия - в частност етичен монотеизъм какъвто е юдеизма, христянството и исляма.
Понеже това е философия, както различни други философии тази приема на дни неща за верни и тръгва да мисли, ако са така какво би означавало.
В случая тази книга би била интересна и за атеист може би.. щото не настоява, че бог съществува, а казва - ако приемем, че бог съществува и после мисли приемайки това за така... Това е хубаво упражнение.
Да минеш през мисли, прекарани през парадигма, особено, която е различна от твоите.
Как ще евангелизираш наивните вярващи в атеизъм, нихилистичен хедонизъм и комунизъм, ако не разбираш през каква парадигма те мислят?
За това другари атеисти тази книга би била интересна и за вас.
Не съм проучвал автора, нищо чудно и той самия да е атеист.
Почти сигурен съм, че чух казано по сериозен начин без подигравки коментиране на "аргумента за злото" вътре, а само един човек тотално загубил връзка с реалността, лишен от какъвто и да е полезен честен личен опит с нея, и цялостно дълбоко объркан, като един атеист би използвал този аргумент без да усети цялостен кринджгазъм по цялото тяло.
Не сериозно хора... Ако бог съществува и е добър Защо има зло, ако бог е добър?
Защо ли?
Може би защото Бог е дал свобода на избора и свободна воля както на хората така и на другите десийжън мейкъри в реалността и когато един десиджън мейкър е свободен той е свободен да върши, както добро, така и зло.
Т.е. злото не идва от бога..
Идеята е че бог не е вселенски диктатор, който контролира мислите и решения ти, а напротив!
Кое му е толкова трудното..
Но истината е че атеистите (все пак и аз съм бил от това племе преди да осъзная, че са дълбоко заблудени хора и да стана агностик, и в последствие да избера да повярвам в Бог) изобщо не искат истина, не търсят истина, не търсят истинско разбиране. Който търси намира. Те не търсят това и няма как да го намерят. Те търсят начин да се правят на интересни, начин да се покажат, начин да демонстрират превъзходството си. И също да оправдаят паразитния си начин на живот. И да за маскират обърквснето си.
Освен Сам Харис не знам дали има друг известен атеист, който реално да цени поне говорейки за това - истината, и нелъженето.
А един човек, който има навика да лъже никакъв интелектуалец не може да бъде.
Поне не и такъв дет да има контакт с реалността.
Естествено можем, както социолозите да говорим за групи как действат и взимат решения, или за демокрацията или за народа, но такива неща не съществуват..
Социолозите не знаят, че не решенията в групите не съществуват, но това не им пречи да ги коментират и дисертации да пишат за тях.
Книжката беше хубав кратък очерк, по който се разходих, от време на време го слушах, от време на време просто си мислих по зададените теми, няколко пъти кринджнах щото автора говореше глупости, некореспондиращи с реалността, но кат цяло 4/5 мисля е честна оценка...
Пък и все пак вече втори път я слушам.
October 15, 2021
Phew, what a slog
I like these Very Short Introduction books. There are typically about 3 - 4 hours long and make a great palate cleanser if your last book left a bad taste in your mouth. They typically give you a good grounding in what a subject is about and tell you a lot more that you could have ever found out if you just tried to research it yourself on the internet.
I've read a few of these so far and most have exceeded my expectations. Sadly, based on my heightened expectations this one seemed like a disappointment for merely meeting my expectations.
This book seems to be a recitation of predominately western thought about religion for the last few thousand years. It was Dryly academic, largely eurocentric, and had a narrow view of Philosophy as being only the search for literal truth. All fine and dandy, I don't know what else I'd expected except so many of these have surprised the hell out of me with new ideas that I'd never thought of and excited my mind. Still not a bad use of 3 hours time.
I like these Very Short Introduction books. There are typically about 3 - 4 hours long and make a great palate cleanser if your last book left a bad taste in your mouth. They typically give you a good grounding in what a subject is about and tell you a lot more that you could have ever found out if you just tried to research it yourself on the internet.
I've read a few of these so far and most have exceeded my expectations. Sadly, based on my heightened expectations this one seemed like a disappointment for merely meeting my expectations.
This book seems to be a recitation of predominately western thought about religion for the last few thousand years. It was Dryly academic, largely eurocentric, and had a narrow view of Philosophy as being only the search for literal truth. All fine and dandy, I don't know what else I'd expected except so many of these have surprised the hell out of me with new ideas that I'd never thought of and excited my mind. Still not a bad use of 3 hours time.
June 30, 2023
A solid introduction, defining and differentiating philosophy of religion from theology. Both are interested in exploring questions about God and faith, but the former will often approach answering them in a broader manner that isn't limited to a single religious tradition. Philosophy of religion will require adherence to philosophical methods, arguments and reason to defend its conclusions. This approach is also referred to as natural theology.
There's an acknowledgment that philosophy can't answer definitively all of our questions. Philosophical inquiry can, however, help sharpen our thinking and understanding of God.
Major questions in the area of religion are surveyed, including how we can conceptualize and speak about God, arguing for and against His existence, and the problems of evil and hiddeness. As can be expected in a very short intro, the chapters give a sweeping look at a question and some answers that have been given, leaving the reader to explore them in more depth.
There's an acknowledgment that philosophy can't answer definitively all of our questions. Philosophical inquiry can, however, help sharpen our thinking and understanding of God.
Major questions in the area of religion are surveyed, including how we can conceptualize and speak about God, arguing for and against His existence, and the problems of evil and hiddeness. As can be expected in a very short intro, the chapters give a sweeping look at a question and some answers that have been given, leaving the reader to explore them in more depth.
September 20, 2022
Interesting, informative, and easily accessible. This book doesn't just look at the philosophical debates within theism among theists, but also at debate philosophical debates between theists vs atheists. The topics in this book include: what properties can we attribute to God, the arguments for the existence of God, the problem of divine hiddenness, the nature of faith, the problem of evil, the biological and sociological origins of religion, the realism vs anti-realism debate over religious language and scripture, and the afterlife.
May 25, 2020
An effective brief overview of the major talking points tied to the philosophy of religion with a summary of different perspectives covered for each one (both atheistic and theistic). Discussion includes: compatibilism vs. incompatibilism (and the degree of free will we may or may not have); arguments from morality, teleological design, personal revelation (and why these arguments may be insufficient to obtain); the problem of evil; and competing models that attempt to explain the source of religion (e.g., hyperactive agency detection, cognitive biases, etc.).
January 19, 2023
I like the accessibility of this book! Easy to follow for the most part. Great appetizer to Philosophy of religion. The only thing I will say is that in the chapter about theist and deists(?), the pronunciation is so similar, I'm not sire if these two are what the two categories are.
Great book to use for a philosophy club or introduction to philosophy of religion (for beginners).
What I have learned is that I do well with nonfiction and audiobooks.
Great book to use for a philosophy club or introduction to philosophy of religion (for beginners).
What I have learned is that I do well with nonfiction and audiobooks.
May 28, 2024
Personaly I didn't think the book is for me. To many of the arguments made by te book I had counterarguments for which the book didn't discuss. Obviously the book was a bit biased, because the author will of course advocate for his opinion with more passion. Although I didn't like the contents of the book, I can still say that for what this book tried to achieve, it did very well: it gave a very short introduction to the philisophy of religion. Although some things could have been explained better, I think overall the explaining was very on point.
June 22, 2023
Very good, even if a little maddeningly unpartisan. The author clearly made a highly concerted effort to include retorts and counterretorts from both sides, and that is admirable. Dont understand why all the religious people are reviewbombing it. This is about as good an honest treatment as they could hope for.
March 7, 2025
Quite a disappointment. I expected better thinking from philosophers of religion. Seems to me to be the very definition of people who “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24).” Nonetheless, I'm glad I read it, if only to get some insight into current thinking on philosophy of religion. They seem to talk around it without ever being willing to really take a deep dive.
September 21, 2018
Interesting. But often very confusing.
October 9, 2019
An excellent, clearly written, thought provoking introduction to the subject.
March 1, 2020
Clear and concise overview
Easy to follow and acts as a very good introductory book to the topic. Can be read in less than a day.
Easy to follow and acts as a very good introductory book to the topic. Can be read in less than a day.
June 30, 2021
Took me back to college. Don't read it too casually of you'll get lost.
May 25, 2024
Author is ignorant about everything he talks about. Knows nothing about the religions. Spits nonsense arguments which he later on refutes without realising etc.
May 29, 2024
Average religious book, easy to follow, interesting information, but you should really read the bible if you want to know about God
August 2, 2024
Credibility - 9
Accessibility - 10
Writing - 9
Pay off - 4
Individuality - 3
Logic - 10
Enjoyment - 7
Av. 7.4 - 4 stars
Accessibility - 10
Writing - 9
Pay off - 4
Individuality - 3
Logic - 10
Enjoyment - 7
Av. 7.4 - 4 stars
August 13, 2024
It is nice that all the major arguments are introduced however an atheist angle does seem to be more present throughout the text but that may just be me.
September 30, 2024
I dig it. I learned stuff
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews