Jump to content

Menu
Giving You and Your Child a Road Map to the Best Possible Education
The Well-Trained Mind Community

Who are your favorite theist and atheist thinkers...

shinyhappypeople

By shinyhappypeople,
in The Chat Board

 Share

Recommended Posts

Spy Car

Spy Car

Posted
Posted (edited)

As a life-long skeptic (and non-religious person) I can't think of any of the so-called New Atheists (Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins who are particularly deep "thinkers" when it comes to religion and the existence (or not) of God. I loved reading Hitchens on other topics (sometimes agreeing with him, other times not), but (like the others) his (edit) God is Not Great (I originally put God Delusion, which is Dawkins' book) struck me as shallow. polemical (fueling heat rather than light). Dawkins may be a brilliant evolutionary biologists, but what an arse.

 

it has been a long time (long time) but the writing of Bertrand Russell were more interesting to me than the above. I also didn't need convincing or de-conversion.

 

To avoid sparing the other side ( :D) i found C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity maddening in its illogical leaps. I found myself sputtering rebuttals the entire way though, and found the violations of formal logical (while attempting to present the apologetics as a logical case) where an intellectual affront. Bleh.

 

Bill (certain to please no one)

Edited by Spy Car
  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Faithr

Faithr

Posted
Posted

G. K. Chesterton is great! I also really enjoyed reading The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins. Thomas Merton's conversion story I think is the most often cited book that inspired converts. So he must be convincing! Of course Aquinas' made some pretty good arguments.

 

I can't remember any atheistic writings that convinced me. There must have been some but it has been a while. I am a revert. I went through a long period of agnosticism/atheism (depended on the day!) and then a very long, slow reversion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
6packofun

6packofun

Posted
Posted

Tim Keller is a very thoughtful theologian and I consider Ravi Zacharias an accessible one, too.  But for deep thinkers I go to Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and Dr. John Lennox. (My picks tend towards philosophy and apologetics, sometimes relating to science.)  As far as apologists (defending the case for a creator):  Greg Koukl, J. Warner Wallace (Cold Case Christianity), Paul Copan, Gary Habermas (defending the resurrection), and Tim and Lydia McGrew.  You said "theists" and I'm Christian, so take that into account, obviously.  lol  I'd be interested to hear of some deep Hindu/Sikh theist thinker recommendations, though.

 

As far as atheists go, it has always been tough for me to find some to read who don't have cranky, angry attitudes.  lol  But Peter Atkins and Stephen Hawking are 2 that I will always at least listen to.  :)  Sometimes I read Jerry Coyne and even Lawrence Krauss.  Oh, i'd like to read Michel Onfray's (sp?) Atheist Manifesto out of curiosity.  There is another guy whose name totally escapes me but I think he has a very interesting blog...off to search.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a female, former Muslim atheist that I've heard some buzz about, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegoat

Bluegoat

Posted
Posted

I was going to mention Chesterton as well.  THough I think many people today find they have to think about their context before their arguments make sense.

 

Allister McGrath is worthwhile, Plantinga.  Some like N.T Wright though he isn't my cup of tea.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
swimmermom3

swimmermom3

Posted
Posted

As a life-long skeptic (and non-religious person) I can't think of any of the so-called New Atheists (Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins who are particularly deep "thinkers" when it comes to religion and the existence (or not) of God. I loved reading Hitchens on other topics (sometimes agreeing with him, other times not), but (like the others) his (edit) God is Not Great (I originally put God Delusion, which is Dawkins' book) struck me as shallow. polemical (fueling heat rather than light). Dawkins may be a brilliant evolutionary biologists, but what an arse.

 

it has been a long time (long time) but the writing of Bertrand Russell were more interesting to me than the above. I also didn't need convincing or de-conversion.

 

To avoid sparing the other side ( :D) i found C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity maddening in its illogical leaps. I found myself sputtering rebuttals the entire way though, and found the violations of formal logical (while attempting to present the apologetics as a logical case) where an intellectual affront. Bleh.

 

Bill (certain to please no one)

 

I am pleased, Bill. Does that count? :D

 

While I am an agnostic, I appreciated Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian," as it provided clarity for my own situation.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lady Florida.

Lady Florida.

Posted
Posted (edited)

Women first, since they rarely make it to such lists. Other than that, no particular order.

 

Greta Christina (she offers the best explanation of the "angry atheist" I've read)

Jennifer MIchael Hecht (Doubt, The End of the Soul)

Barbara Forrest

Lawrence Krauss

Jerry Coyne

Daniel Dennett

Darrel Ray (The God Virus, Sex and God)

 

These authors don't specifically address the "why I don't believe" issue as the main topic of their books and other writings, but it most certainly fits in their overall narratives. For strictly the "why I don't believe" view, I think Bertrand Russell's nearly 90 year old essay is still relevant.

 

I can't help you on the theist end because it's been many, many years since I read any. None of the ones I did read years ago have stood out in my mind. You seem to have been given a number of theistic suggestions though, so I thought I'd help with the other side. ;)

 

 

 Dawkins may be a brilliant evolutionary biologists, but what an arse.

 

 

 

  :iagree:

 

 

ETA: I've read books by both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but am not a fan of either. I did like Hitchens' book about Mother Teresa but that's a whole different subject.

Edited by Lady Florida
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegoat

Bluegoat

Posted
Posted

I've been trying to think of an atheist author who talks about his worldview in something like a metaphysical sense.  The New Atheists are the most obvious, but not very good.  I liked Nietzche - I think he appealed to my romanticism - but that isn't quite what you are looking for.  A lot of them deny metaphysics, so they don't really offer that kind of explanation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onceuponatime

Onceuponatime

Posted
Posted (edited)

As an atheist, I appreciate:

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (found on Gutenberg.org)

Most books by Bart Ehrman

The Christ by John Remsberg (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm)

Professor Matt McCormick's series of lectures on the philosophy of religion ( found on YouTube)

Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lecture on the Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity. ( found on YouTube)

 

One problem with looking for some kind of consistent atheist worldview is that there isn't one. Atheism is just non-theism, not believing in gods. Like someone who doesn't collect stamps is a non- stamp collector. How and why individuals get there can be as varied as the individuals themselves. There is no atheist holy book to examine and interpret. There is no specific atheist philosophy. There is only the personal philosophies of the atheist individuals.

Edited by Onceuponatime
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shinyhappypeople

shinyhappypeople

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is a great list.  Thank you for ALL the suggestions.  I have my work cut out for me :)

 

I agree with pretty much everyone here that Dawkins is probably a better scientist than philosopher.    For a smart guy (and I have no doubt he is very intelligent) his arguments are shallow, at best. "I don't believe in God, because believing in God is stupid and delusional, and there's no way I will ever change my mind because you and your arguments are also stupid and delusional, but I'm very smart and correct because... DARWIN!"   :banghead:   I mean, really?  That's the best you can do?  I listened to most of an interview of Dawkins by Neil Degrasse Tyson and was just left cold (NDT was lovely, though).  

 

I now have a bit of a philosopher-crush on John Lennox.  Maybe it's the accent :)  I listened to "Faith Has Its Reasons, pt. 1" on youtube and the man is incredibly smart and gracious.    

 

Onceuponatime, thanks for mentioning Matt McCormick and Robert Sapolsky.  These sound great for "puzzle time."  I like to listen to lectures and debates while I do jigsaw puzzles online.  Apparently I can't geek out just halfway.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lady Florida.

Lady Florida.

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

I agree with pretty much everyone here that Dawkins is probably a better scientist than philosopher.    For a smart guy (and I have no doubt he is very intelligent) his arguments are shallow, at best. "I don't believe in God, because believing in God is stupid and delusional, and there's no way I will ever change my mind because you and your arguments are also stupid and delusional, but I'm very smart and correct because... DARWIN!"   :banghead:   I mean, really?  That's the best you can do?  I listened to most of an interview of Dawkins by Neil Degrasse Tyson and was just left cold (NDT was lovely, though).  

 

 

 

Well, he has actually said he can't be sure God doesn't exist.  He just believes the probability is very, very low, and that if there is a god or gods it's unlikely to be the Christian god. That link isn't the first time he's said that either. In fact, he puts himself at a 6 (out of 7) on the scale he came up with. It's called the Spectrum of Theistic Probability, but is better known informally as the Dawkins Scale. From the Wiki article:

 

"Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate."

 

Most of us just think he's a jerk because of a lot of the stuff that comes out of his mouth. He might be highly intelligent but in some ways he's no different than any other privileged old white man.

 

Also, keep in mind that Thomas Paine was a deist, so technically he was not an atheist. Still, The Age of Reason is awesome even though it has some dry parts.

 

Happy Reading!

Edited by Lady Florida
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pam in CT

Pam in CT

Posted
Posted

:seeya: Hi Dotwithaperiod!

I don't know if this would be of interest, but I really felt like a different person after learning about this man...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbach

I'd never heard of him until I read Gilead, and decided to research the author, Marilynne Robinson, which rabbit-trailed to Feuerbach.

I got nothing for this thread, but on a different subject, lol, on some other Epic Thread a while ago you referenced Paul Chappell's The Art of Waging Peace: A Strategic Approach to Improving Our Lives and the World, which I recently finished and greatly enjoyed.  Thank you.

 

And as I also loved Gilead, I'll look out for Feuerbach now as well.

 

 

 

(back to regular programming...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sbgrace

sbgrace

Posted
Posted (edited)

Greg Boyd's Letters from a Skeptic has been mentioned. I really liked his Benefit of the Doubt better. Actually, I loved that book. It would fall on the theistic side, but it's different than most books of it's type.

 

Someone mentioned Francis Collins too. I think it's important from the viewpoint that he accepts evolution and believes God. It's unfortunate that US culture particularly has so much historical baggage in this area.

Edited by sbgrace
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegoat

Bluegoat

Posted
Posted (edited)

As an atheist, I appreciate:

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine (found on Gutenberg.org)

Most books by Bart Ehrman

The Christ by John Remsberg (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm)

Professor Matt McCormick's series of lectures on the philosophy of religion ( found on YouTube)

Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lecture on the Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity. ( found on YouTube)

 

One problem with looking for some kind of consistent atheist worldview is that there isn't one. Atheism is just non-theism, not believing in gods. Like someone who doesn't collect stamps is a non- stamp collector. How and why individuals get there can be as varied as the individuals themselves. There is no atheist holy book to examine and interpret. There is no specific atheist philosophy. There is only the personal philosophies of the atheist individuals.

 

Hmm, but there is no specific theist theology either.  There are, as in atheism, various schools of thought and various worldviews, and there are the ways individuals relate to those.  Most of the New Atheists, for example, seem to come out of a naturalistic or materialist worldview, and in a lot of cases you could connect their ideas to various specific schools of thought.

 

In the same way, if you want to investigate theism, as a broad catagory, you could look at the monotheistic religions which have some significant variety, you could look at pantheists, you could look at Platonism, deism, and lots of others. 

 

The fact is there is very little that can be said about theism or atheism as categories, and to a large degree you aren't going to get far by asking someone for one argument for theism, or atheism. 

Edited by Bluegoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onceuponatime

Onceuponatime

Posted
Posted

Hmm, but there is no specific theist theology either. There are, as in atheism, various schools of thought and various worldviews, and there are the ways individuals relate to those. Most of the New Atheists, for example, seem to come out of a naturalistic or materialist worldview, and in a lot of cases you could connect their ideas to various specific schools of thought.

 

In the same way, if you want to investigate theism, as a broad catagory, you could look at the monotheistic religions which have some significant variety, you could look at pantheists, you could look at Platonism, deism, and lots of others.

 

The fact is there is very little that can be said about theism or atheism as categories, and to a large degree you aren't going to get far by asking someone for one argument for theism, or atheism.

I'm guessing that most of the theists posting in this thread are *not* suggesting texts which advocate a broad investigation of theism.

 

Also, if one does not believe in gods of any kind, there aren't many options left besides some form of naturalism or materialism. Can you think of any specific alternatives?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lady Florida.

Lady Florida.

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

The fact is there is very little that can be said about theism or atheism as categories, and to a large degree you aren't going to get far by asking someone for one argument for theism, or atheism. 

 

It's my understanding that shiny isn't asking for one argument, and that is in fact why she's asking for a number of authors/thinkers who give their reasons for believing or not believing in a deity/deities. Unless I misread her OP, she's interested in a variety of arguments for or against.

Edited by Lady Florida
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegoat

Bluegoat

Posted
Posted

I'm guessing that most of the theists posting in this thread are *not* suggesting texts which advocate a broad investigation of theism.

 

Also, if one does not believe in gods of any kind, there aren't many options left besides some form of naturalism or materialism. Can you think of any specific alternatives?

 

Well, I don't know about your first statement, people are generally going to reccomend something they like, I suppose, or what they think the OP is looking for, so you get what is reflected demographically.   But I think if its fair to point out that atheism isn't just the New Atheists, or people who have fallen prey to scientism, it's also fair to point out that theism isn't one thing either.

 

I find it hard to take seriously an atheist who thinks an argument against Christianity or organized religion is the same as an argument against the existence of god, and that is a common problem for people who think theism is one kind of thing. 

 

If people ask me a more general question, and I think they want that kind of reading, I often suggest something like Plato. 

 

I can't think of any major schools besides the one you mention in atheism, but I may be missing some found in other cultures.  Some people consider pantheism a type of atheism though personally I don't. I'm also not sure it's fair to say naturalism is necessarily atheist.  But even within those two categories, there are some pretty different ways of looking at it.  People who identify as humanists aren't necessarily believing the same thing as an objectivist or a Marxist.  I would describe both atheism and theism as a set of inter-related sets of ideas about the basis or fabric of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegoat

Bluegoat

Posted
Posted

It's my understanding that shiny isn't asking for one argument, and that is in fact why she's asking for a number of authors/thinkers who give their reasons for believing or not believing in a deity/deities. Unless I misread her OP, she's interested in a variety of arguments for or against.

 

Yes, my impression was that it was pretty open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
albeto.

albeto.

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, I don't know about your first statement, people are generally going to reccomend something they like, I suppose, or what they think the OP is looking for, so you get what is reflected demographically.   But I think if its fair to point out that atheism isn't just the New Atheists, or people who have fallen prey to scientism, it's also fair to point out that theism isn't one thing either.

 

What is "fallen prey to scientism"? 

 

I find it hard to take seriously an atheist who thinks an argument against Christianity or organized religion is the same as an argument against the existence of god, and that is a common problem for people who think theism is one kind of thing. 

 

I think that's mostly a matter of brevity. Most xians are atheistic against all the other gods already, knock out the god of the bible and there's no one left to carry the torch. 

 

Obviously that's not 100% true, as we can see former xians do convert to other religions altogether (ie, islam and paganism are popular destinations for disgruntled xians), but in general I suspect the practice you see derives from practicality. It's simply by far the most common consequence to holding one's theism accountable to reason and rational arguments, and so it's the one generally assumed. I think in communities like this, it's the most practical approach. 

 

I can't think of any major schools besides the one you mention in atheism, but I may be missing some found in other cultures.  Some people consider pantheism a type of atheism though personally I don't. I'm also not sure it's fair to say naturalism is necessarily atheist.  But even within those two categories, there are some pretty different ways of looking at it.  People who identify as humanists aren't necessarily believing the same thing as an objectivist or a Marxist.  I would describe both atheism and theism as a set of inter-related sets of ideas about the basis or fabric of reality.

 

Obligatory reminder for the OP that atheism isn't a philosophical idea, it's simply the lack of belief in gods and goddesses. Some atheists are materialists, while others carry on a significant belief in some kind of woo. If you were to exchange the word "a-theism" for "a-leprechaun-ism" (a lack of belief in leprechauns), you'd get the same thing - categorized by lack of a specific belief in the existence of this thing. Full stop. 

Edited by albeto.
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onceuponatime

Onceuponatime

Posted
Posted (edited)

What albeto said. Ă°Å¸ËœÆ’

 

ETA: I think I've mentioned this before: I'm assuming you (blue goat) as a christian have rejected all other versions of theism in favor of the christian God. While it is magnanimous of you to include them in the discussion, it must be acknowledged that you don't believe in them either. You believe in a specific God, with specific attributes.( if I am mistaken, I aplogize.) As Albeto said, we just go one brand of theism further. We reject them all. That is the only thing all atheists have in common.

Edited by Onceuponatime
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mom-ninja.

Mom-ninja.

Posted
Posted

  But I think if its fair to point out that atheism isn't just the New Atheists, or people who have fallen prey to scientism, it's also fair to point out that theism isn't one thing either.

 

 

 

:lol:  what the heck is that? Scientism? I see all sorts of stuff on the hive. 

 

 

Also, what is a New Atheist? Atheism has been around for quite a long time. It's not new. The ideas written by modern day authors are not even new. New answers to questions due to advancement in knowledge, but the lack of believe in gods is not new. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
albeto.

albeto.

Posted
Posted (edited)

Also, what is a New Atheist?

 

Cheeky answer:

 

 

old-atheists-vs-new-atheists-600x334.jpe

 

 

 

Serious answer, "New Atheism" is a term used to denote a recent trend in response to the longstanding, and generally protected promotion of theism. In general, theism was tolerated by atheists in social arenas (with notable exceptions, ie Madalyn Murray O'Hair or George Carlin). After 9/11, people began to speak out against the idea that relying on faith based claims is a beneficial, or at worst, a benign element within society. People started writing books and speaking in public against the privilege religion has in public policy and private behavior. It overlaps with anti-theism, but isn't the same. New Atheism is the trend of exposing irrational claims and challenging faith-based beliefs when they arise, whereas anti-theism is arguing that religion is by it's nature detrimental to society and individuals. 

Edited by albeto.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lady Florida.

Lady Florida.

Posted
Posted

 

Obligatory reminder for the OP that atheism isn't a philosophical idea, it's simply the lack of belief in gods and goddesses. Some atheists are materialists, while others carry on a significant belief in some kind of woo. If you were to exchange the word "a-theism" for "a-leprechaun-ism" (a lack of belief in leprechauns), you'd get the same thing - categorized by lack of a specific belief. Full stop. 

 

Yep. https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluegoat

Bluegoat

Posted
Posted

What albeto said. Ă°Å¸ËœÆ’

 

ETA: I think I've mentioned this before: I'm assuming you (blue goat) as a christian have rejected all other versions of theism in favor of the christian God. While it is magnanimous of you to include them in the discussion, it must be acknowledged that you don't believe in them either. You believe in a specific God, with specific attributes.( if I am mistaken, I aplogize.) As Albeto said, we just go one brand of theism further. We reject them all. That is the only thing all atheists have in common.

 

No, I wouldn't say that I have rejected all other versions of god.  I think that is a pretty basic misunderstanding of monotheism actually, that isn't, philosophically, how it works.  If I weren't a CHristian, I would probably be a platonist, you could accuratly say right now that I am a platonist as many CHristians are and have been.  I would also say that when other monotheists are talking about god, probably without exception, whether they are religious or not, they are talking about the same thing.  As are pantheists, deists, and even many polytheists.

 

Suggesting that giving reasons for not being a Christian refutes all theism is a bit like saying that you don't believe in Marxism because you think class struggle doesn't exist and therefore you have refuted atheism.  And it limits the discussion as well.  There are a heck of a lot of people who are probably pantheists, or might find it compelling, who don't realize it because the focus on "refuting Christianity" has led them to believe that is the only way to think about god.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DawnM

DawnM

Posted
Posted

Cheeky answer:

 

 

old-atheists-vs-new-atheists-600x334.jpe

 

 

 

Serious answer, "New Atheism" is a term used to denote a recent trend in response to the longstanding, and generally protected promotion of theism. In general, theism was tolerated by atheists in social arenas (with notable exceptions, ie Madalyn Murray O'Hair or George Carlin). After 9/11, people began to speak out against the idea that relying on faith based claims is a beneficial, or at worst, a benign element within society. People started writing books and speaking in public against the privilege religion has in public policy and private behavior. It overlaps with anti-theism, but isn't the same. New Atheism is the trend of exposing irrational claims and challenging faith-based beliefs when they arise, whereas anti-theism is arguing that religion is by it's nature detrimental to society and individuals. 

 

 

Ok, how do you do that hide thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
albeto.

albeto.

Posted
Posted

Suggesting that giving reasons for not being a Christian refutes all theism...

 

No one is saying dismissing xian theology refutes all theism.  What we're saying is that refuting xian theology generally satisfies the curiosity of the person asking, simply and for no other reason than because it's the theology that matters to them. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
idnib

idnib

Posted
Posted

I'm not an atheist, but....

 

Because I just finished this book, I'll go waaayyyy back and suggest On the Nature of Things, by the ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius. He was a disciple of Epicurius, and both of them were atheists. These are some of the earliest atheistic writing see know of. They were urging Romans to move away from their gods, although Lucretius makes an homage to Venus in the beginning of his book, probably to at least draw the audience in before trying to convince them.Another interesting book might be Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World, which I've had on my radar but never read.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pam in CT

Pam in CT

Posted
Posted

Yeah, if your interests take you back to classical times, I'd second Nature of Things...

 

I'm not an atheist, but....

 

Because I just finished this book, I'll go waaayyyy back and suggest On the Nature of Things, by the ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius. He was a disciple of Epicurius, and both of them were atheists. These are some of the earliest atheistic writing see know of. They were urging Romans to move away from their gods, although Lucretius makes an homage to Venus in the beginning of his book, probably to at least draw the audience in before trying to convince them.Another interesting book might be Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World, which I've had on my radar but never read.

 

... and raise idnib by Rebecca Goldstein's Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away, which is immensely accessible and also hilarious but a very good serious synthesis of the implication of old ideas in the modern world.  Looking at you, albeto.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
umsami

umsami

Posted
Posted

I really don't know a lot of Muslims who address this, so I'll go with OK Bud's recommendations.  For Muslim thinkers/books, I think Robert Frager has written some wonderful books.  Rumi and Hafiz as well.  Tariq Ramadan is usually a good read.  Also Kabir Helminksi and Muzaffar Ozak.

 

I agree with C.S. Lewis above.  There was a book I read 20 years ago or more called "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made."  It basically went through the amazing creation that is the human body.... it was written by a physician or maybe two physicians....and it really did make me think that it was impossible for all that to evolve spontaneously. 

 

I do love Pema Chodron....her books and tapes, as well as Thich Naht Hahn.

 

For Jewish writers, I remember enjoying Rebetzin Esther Jungreis's "The Committed Life." 

 

I also think some of the near death experience books speak towards an existence of some sort of higher power/source of love/whatever. 

 

I"m also going to plug the books of Trista Hendren (who has a Facebook page called the Girl God."  Really enjoyed her "Whatever Works: Feminists of Faith Speak."   Sue Monk Kidd's "Dance of the Dissident Daughter" is a favorite, too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...