Noah's Ark dinosaurs
Quote: pewIt's not about what I believe, it's about what God says. Maybe you can't grasp the concept due to a closed mind.
Again how do you know what God says other than the bible. The bible has many cases of atrocities being committed. God often times called for the wholesale slaughter of an entire people. I mean these people say they are doing exactly what god commanded why is your interpretation any more valid than theirs? For instance take the passage "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" Now this could be interpreted figuratively which is arguably how it should be and it refers to ideological upheaval and familial divisions caused by religious difference in family others have taken a literal interpretation of it as a call to arms in a fight against what the church says is evil. So if you take it figuratively what evidence do you have that that is how God intended it to be taken. Also it needs to be more than personal revelations since many of these people who have advocated violence also had personal revelations of God commanding them to for instance bomb an abortion clinic or do any manner of atrocities.
Again it is one thing to argue that the good religion, any religion, does outweighs the bad it is quite another to say that any religion has caused no ill. In every religion you look you have people committing horrible acts and you may say they are perverting a message of peace and love but what makes your interpretation of the bible any more valid than theirs.
You get to pick and choose your Gods so yes, it's about what YOU believe.Quote: pewIt's not about what I believe, it's about what God says. Maybe you can't grasp the concept due to a closed mind.
Quote: Sabretom2It really doesn't matter how much y'all mock what others believe, it won't fill that whole in your own lives.
Take it you meant hole and I'm pretty fulfilled actually. I mean an invisible friend is nice when you are a child but not so needed when you are an adult.
Quote: TwirdmanTake it you meant hole and I'm pretty fulfilled actually. I mean an invisible friend is nice when you are a child but not so needed when you are an adult.
So why mock?
Quote: TwirdmanSo if you take it figuratively what evidence do you have that that is how God intended it to be taken. Also it needs to be more than personal revelations since many of these people who have advocated violence also had personal revelations of God commanding them to for instance bomb an abortion clinic or do any manner of atrocities.
Again it is one thing to argue that the good religion, any religion, does outweighs the bad it is quite another to say that any religion has caused no ill. In every religion you look you have people committing horrible acts and you may say they are perverting a message of peace and love but what makes your interpretation of the bible any more valid than theirs.
I think at the top of page six on this thread I tried to answer a similar question. Twirdman is giving the perfect reason for why we need a Magisterium or an authoritative voice to help us to understand the Bible.
True story: I was invited to attend a large meeting between Jews and Muslims. The event was to have a few keynote speakers and then small group discussions between members of both religions. I was a small group leader to try and keep the discussion helpful and moving forward. Anyway, the Muslim keynote speaker said much to my surprise that more than anything else Islam needs a Pope! What he was getting at is there is no one to authoritatively say this is what the Koran means or to say that if you believe it means this or that you are not Muslim and are using your own personal interpretation.
Quote: Sabretom2So why mock?
Because religion causes a lot of harm in the world and I'm not sure the goods outweigh the bads. Especially given a significant portion of the populations outright rejection of science which holds us back from further progressing.
Quote: frgambleI think at the top of page six on this thread I tried to answer a similar question. Twirdman is giving the perfect reason for why we need a Magisterium or an authoritative voice to help us to understand the Bible.
Well then you are still left with the problem religious authorities have condoned acts of extraordinary violence and they were listening to what the authority said the bible said so clearly Christian and yet they committed heinous acts. You cannot simply say that Christians, Muslims, or a host of other religions do not have violent past or presents just because you don't agree with what they are doing.
Quote: teliot
You seem to be hinting at the "ghost in the machine" argument for god. G in the thing we don't know yet. And since we can't know everything, g must be somewhere.
Actually I was trying to determine if you are a fanatical science "nut". You know there are fanatical religious nuts - people who think the Bible is to be taken literally word for word, that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, dragons existed with men, that no unbelievers will get to heaven, etc. Well there are also fanatical science nuts who make science into a religion; they think that all our problems can be solved through technology, that nothing that can't be seen or observed exists, that all knowledge must come from the scientific method, that science can answer all and every question including philosophical and theological ones, etc. So I'll ask again do you think science has any limits?
Quote:
Religion isn't silly, it's the stuff that religious people believe that's silly. Religion is harmful and dangerous. I'm opposed to dangerous things. Cancer is a biological outgrowth, like red hair. Some parts of biology are good, others not so good.
First of all let me make it clear that I believe your biological explanation of religion is ridiculous. However, suspending my disbelief for a moment and assuming your theory why can you call religion "not so good". (Let's also ignore the fact that in a purposeless universe without God the very idea of good or bad can't be consistently applied) Yes, cancer is harmful and dangerous but if it is just the result of biological forces than can we say it is evil or bad? Its unfortunate and ugly, but it's not something that can be controlled, changed, or chosen. You already said you would not hate someone who had red hair, nor would you hate someone who was born with a homosexual inclination, so why do you dislike religious people so much? You just don't like the stuff of religion, but if that is an outgrowth of biological architecture of our brain how can you put a negative judgment on it? What if God forbid you were born or developed religious ideas because of some chemical imbalance?
I answered that. Look up the incompleteness theorem I referenced. As for "science nuts," I would rather try and figure out answers than invent answers. When a question arises, like the origin of the universe, I am overjoyed that there are dedicated professionals with intellectual curiosity who spend years searching for the answer. Then, when they actually do answer the question they have been working on, the joy is overwhelming. New truths have not been invented or made up, they have been discovered. Such was the case this week with the proof of gravitational waves. Apparently, you are satisfied just making stuff up, or believing previously made up stuff. I find that sad.Quote: FrGambleSo I'll ask again do you think science has any limits?
I am happy to be able to use a computer, whose parts rely on a deep understanding of quantum mechanics, or a cell phone, whose antenna uses the geometry of fractals. The various massive structures of belief that are called religions are each based on a collection of anecdotes. None has yet to produce a single useful tool to benefit mankind.
Quote: TwirdmanBecause religion causes a lot of harm in the world and I'm not sure the goods outweigh the bads. Especially given a significant portion of the populations outright rejection of science which holds us back from further progressing.
Oh I see. So it's a crusade.
I should point out to FrGamble's Muslim acquaintance that Popes aren't the Magisterium or authoritative voice or even the muckity-muck for all of Christianity and not a even a majority of Christians around the world. Even if the Shia had a Pope, the Sunni would reject it. I'm certain that even FrGamble believes that a person picks their own Gods and rejects the rest. If he didn't believe that, then he wouldn't bother trying to convert us unwashed heathen into Catholicism. There would be no point.Quote: FrGambleTrue story: I was invited to attend a large meeting between Jews and Muslims. The event was to have a few keynote speakers and then small group discussions between members of both religions. I was a small group leader to try and keep the discussion helpful and moving forward. Anyway, the Muslim keynote speaker said much to my surprise that more than anything else Islam needs a Pope! What he was getting at is there is no one to authoritatively say this is what the Koran means or to say that if you believe it means this or that you are not Muslim and are using your own personal interpretation.
Since a person picks their own Gods or lack thereof, it's easy to conclude that the choice of one's God reflects more on that person than of that God.
exhibit A:
Quote: teliotThe various massive structures of belief that are called religions are each based on a collection of anecdotes. None has yet to produce a single useful tool to benefit mankind.
I find it very interesting you complain that religion has not provided a useful tool, like religion should make a new type of screwdriver. It shows again that I'm afraid you think the only valuable contributions anyone can make is through science or technology. Religion has given us the concept that human beings are special and that all people are created equal. Religion has taught us that the universe is ordered and has a purpose and therefore can effectively and usefully be studied (the birth of science, yeah!). Religion gives us hope that this broken and unjust world is not all there is and the inspiration to try to fix it as best we can. Religion gives us a foundation on which to claim something is truly or objectively bad or good. We could continue this in the celebrate religion thread. While these are not tools or wrenches or scientific discoveries they are none the less truth and truth of a higher order that allows us to do science and build technology ethically and well.
Quote: FrGambleAnyway, the Muslim keynote speaker said much to my surprise that more than anything else Islam needs a Pope! What he was getting at is there is no one to authoritatively say this is what the Koran means or to say that if you believe it means this or that you are not Muslim and are using your own personal interpretation.
I won't rehash the bit about the three Popes, but will rather merely point out having a Pope hasn't kept Christianity from fragmenting into a large number of denominations. Even early in the Church's history, the Pope may have been supreme in the West, but the Patriarch of constantinople ruled the East.
Then there's the laundry lists of sects originating ever since Constantine I established a state church in the Roman Empire, with the Nestorians and Monophysites being only the more prominent. And no sooner had Luther founded Protestantism (not called that at the time), when denominations based on it appeared, like Calvinism.
This is not exlcuive or particulAr of Christianity. Fragmentation is a characteristic of all religions, philosophies, and other groups organized along such lines. In politics partIes tend to proliferate, split, re-split, combine, etc.
'Quote: aceofspadesEven if I were to suspend disbelief and go with the story of all the world's animals being on board an ark...dinosaurs...really...?!?
And here I was thinking that this was going to be a thread about how Craps and Roulette are ancient and out of sync.
By the way, how do you have a "day" if the Sun only came later?
That, my friend, is the biggest problem with religion, in a nutshell. One of the greatest gifts of science is the realization that we are not special. I find it extraordinarily arrogant for religions to teach such things. Destroy all the forests. Pollute the water. Heat up the planet. Kill of the species. None of that matters because we are special.Quote: FrGambleReligion has given us the concept that human beings are special
Surely, you're joking.Quote:and that all people are created equal
Religion creates random and meaningless orders that have to be refuted for science to progress. A good case can be made that your religion has, at every point in the course of scientific revolution, persecuted scientists.Quote:Religion has taught us that the universe is ordered and has a purpose and therefore can effectively and usefully be studied (the birth of science, yeah!)
I agree with you, sociopaths are bad for society at large. But, I don't need a tablet to tell me that.Quote:Religion gives us a foundation on which to claim something is truly or objectively bad or good.
If you wonder about the boundaries of science, they I invite you to start learning about how that question is being answered. Read about Godel's theorem, the P v. NP problem, and about the current competing cosmological models. Having spent most of your life studying angels of various types, imagine how much you could know had you spent just a fraction of that time studying real things.
This video is filled with dichotomies. Religious/Scientific. Church/State. Public/Private. Old/New. Male/Female. Group/Individual.
- The United States Air Force band and choir are performing 2 Christian celebrations of the birth of Jesus. (Your tax dollars at work.)
- Bach, a German Lutheran and religious fanatic, and Handel, a humanist, devout but of no known religious sect. Creative contemporaries.
- The USAF band is performing religious music in the middle of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, arguably the most scientific display in the world.
- The conductor is leading from next to the Moon Rock.
- The band is performing among Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules post-spaceflight.
- The religious performance intrinsically depends on the physics of sound developed on instruments and by vocal chords.
- The integrity of the performance relies on the cueing of the conductor because of the extreme dispersion of the group in flash mob fashion; speed of light vs. speed of sound.
In each case, the sum is greater than the parts. It is possible to be divinely inspired by science. It is possible to be rational about religion.
Exactly!Quote: beachbumbabsIt is possible to be rational about religion.
Quote: teliotThat, my friend, is the biggest problem with religion, in a nutshell.
Actually that would be its one redeeming quality, if it were true.
Quote:One of the greatest gifts of science is the realization that we are not special.
On the contrary. The mere fact we have science is proof we are special. Unless you can come up with evidence that, say, chimpanzees build computers, casinos, movie studios, cars, farms, factories, etc.
Don't make me quote Shakespeare.
I almost used that quote.Quote: NareedDon't make me quote Shakespeare.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt is possible to be rational about religion.
Quote: teliotExactly!
Exactly!
There you go, thinking we agree on something 8-)Quote: FrGambleExactly!
A purple invisible mouse is flying around my head, I can't see it but I know it's there. I also can speak with the mouse in a language I can't quite describe that goes on silently in my head. I spend time at night speaking to the mouse in that language. In that language, the mouse is telling me how to live a good life, which I couldn't possibly figure out on my own. It also tells me that it will help my neighbor start believing in the purple mouse. I think that mouse is special and somehow convince myself that the invisible purple mouse thinks I am special.
Am I (a) psychotic, or (b) religious?
[forgive my edit -- you quoted it, so I reposted it]
Quote: teliotThat, my friend, is the biggest problem with religion, in a nutshell. One of the greatest gifts of science is the realization that we are not special. I find it extraordinarily arrogant for religions to teach such things. Destroy all the forests. Pollute the water. Heat up the planet. Kill of the species. None of that matters because we are special.
The list of environmental sins are directly against God's commandment to take care of this beautiful planet. When I say that human beings are special it is connected to the next point that you ridiculed - that we are all created equal. Every human life has a value and dignity beyond measure.
Quote:Religion creates random and meaningless orders that have to be refuted for science to progress. A good case can be made that your religion has, at every point in the course of scientific revolution, persecuted scientists.
This is absolutely not true and I'm speechless, sad, and concerned that you would write it. I don't know where I should begin because you have given no reasons for such an outlandish statement. So let me remind you that many of the greatest scientists of all time have been religious. Very few scientists of any belief system, if any, would agree with your statement. I don't know if you are referring to the most public case of Galileo, who was trying to prove a theory first proposed by a Catholic priest about the Heliocentric universe, but if you are the Church's failure in that instance doesn't amount to an all out persecution. Good grief.
Quote:I agree with you, sociopaths are bad for society at large. But, I don't need a tablet to tell me that.
How do you tell who is a sociopath? How can you say what is bad or good for me or for others without some type of grounding or authority that is universal for all people? You don't need a tablet for that but you do need something more than your feelings, personal thoughts, or the community's values.
Quote:If you wonder about the boundaries of science, they I invite you to start learning about how that question is being answered. Read about Godel's theorem, the P v. NP problem, and about the current competing cosmological models. Having spent most of your life studying angels of various types, imagine how much you could know had you spent just a fraction of that time studying real things.
I love learning about science and especially cosmology because it is super interesting and a good lead in to studying the things that ultimately matter. I will be happy to try and read Godel's theorem. How about if I do that you pick up a philosophy book?
I read a lot of Schopenhauer in my day. I like Stephen Batchelor's books on Buddhism. P.D. Ouspensky wrote some good stuff. I read "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass stoned on LSD. That was quite something. "Autobiography of a Yogi" was a bit over the top. Aristotle and classical philosophy was mostly college stuff. I really like the poetry of Billy Collins. I'm going to see him next month.Quote: FrGambleHow about if I do that you pick up a philosophy book?
Who would you recommend?
I'd like to suggest you start with Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought."
Quote: teliotThere you go, thinking we agree on something 8-) Here's a test of rationality.
A purple invisible mouse is flying around my head, I can't see it but I know it's there. I also can speak with the mouse in a language I can't quite describe that goes on silently in my head. I spend time at night speaking to the mouse in that language. In that language, the mouse is telling me how to live a good life, which I couldn't possibly figure out on my own. It also tells me that it will help my neighbor start believing in the purple mouse. I think that mouse is special and somehow convince myself that the invisible purple mouse thinks I am special.
Am I (a) psychotic, or (b) religious?
What if the mouse was not invisible and was a real human historical figure who spoke the same language as everyone else. What if that man talked about how to live a good life in a way that echoed similar thoughts from throughout human history but was put together in such a way and with such authority that had never been heard before. This man's message was so comforting and life changing that people started sharing the message with others and it had the same effect on them. Even through great persecution this man's message spread like wildfire throughout the whole world. Thousands of years have come and gone and millions upon millions of people, some of the smartest and greatest men and women ever to live have testified to the difference this man has made in their lives. I believe that this man is special and I believe that this man also thinks I am special.
Am I (a) psychotic or (b) religious?
By convention, you are (b), religious. But, if you think you are somehow communicating with this dead guy or his dad, for example through "prayer", then maybe a bit of (a), don't you think? Also, you said that you believe he "thinks" you are special. You are ascribing the capacity for normal human thought to a dead man. How many dead men speak to you, exactly?Quote: FrGambleAm I (a) psychotic or (b) religious?
Quote: FrGambleReligion has given us the concept that human beings are special and that all people are created equal.
History says otherwise, alas.
The first part would seem to be so. Man, after all, was created in God's image and likeness, right? But every other word I ever hear Christians preach is to the effect of how small, mean, evil, nasty, disgusting, brutish, people are. All encapsulated in the word: sinner.
So we are special, but especially bad, twisted, evil, bespotted and ulcerous. I'd rather do without that disctintion, thank you.
As for equal, please don't make me laugh. Women were never equal to men in any way, not according to scripture, practice or tradition. I may add this isn't exclusive to Christianity. Women were not equal in any society until the XX Century, and even now some inequalites, minute in comaprison, persist.
Next by practice and tradition, all sorts of people were treated as lesser than others. Kings, Popes, Cardinals and Bishops were at the top, and things got progressively worse down the ladder. Again, equality before the law had to wait til the XX ccentury,a nd again it's not complete as yet (and perhaps won't ever be).
But all this can be reduced to one question: how equal were the Jews who got expelled from several Christian nations?
Quote:Religion has taught us that the universe is ordered and has a purpose
Religion has claimed this. It has not shown it or proved it, and it may not even be so. In fact,t here's no eidence as to the second part of your statement.
Quote:and therefore can effectively and usefully be studied
Please. Disordered things cna be as effectively studied as ordered ones.
Quote:(the birth of science, yeah!).
One wonders what were Archimides, Pyhtagoras and even namless pre-human hominids doing when they discovered principles in physics, math and the making of fire.
Quote:Religion gives us hope that this broken and unjust world is not all there is and the inspiration to try to fix it as best we can.
People have been trying to "fix" the world since the first pre-human hominid realized they could eat better if they killed prey. The whole of history can be resumed as "how have various people tried to "fix" the world and make it better." The Roman Republic was a solution to a problem, for example. So is the American Republic.
I lean toward A. At least the invisible purple mouse is contemporary.Quote: FrGambleWhat if the mouse was not invisible and was a real human historical figure who spoke the same language as everyone else. What if that man talked about how to live a good life in a way that echoed similar thoughts from throughout human history but was put together in such a way and with such authority that had never been heard before. This man's message was so comforting and life changing that people started sharing the message with others and it had the same effect on them. Even through great persecution this man's message spread like wildfire throughout the whole world. Thousands of years have come and gone and millions upon millions of people, some of the smartest and greatest men and women ever to live have testified to the difference this man has made in their lives. I believe that this man is special and I believe that this man also thinks I am special.
Am I (a) psychotic or (b) religious?
Quote: FrGamble
How do you tell who is a sociopath? How can you say what is bad or good for me or for others without some type of grounding or authority that is universal for all people? You don't need a tablet for that but you do need something more than your feelings, personal thoughts, or the community's values.
Again a divine being is not needed for morality especially not the Christian deity.
A thought experiment say God told you to burn down the house of your neighbor being sure to kill him and his entire family because they are heretics. Do you do it or not. If you do it you are a monster if you don't then you have to say there was something that told you it was morally wrong and it cannot be God since he is the one who said to do it.
Don't say such a scenario is impossible since the bible is replete with examples of God commanding people to commit genocide what is another 6 people between friends.
The answer is I would not and if I may answer for you, you would not either. The real question then becomes why wouldn't we do it? You haven't disproved there needs to be something to objectively ground our morality, in fact you just proved it. There must be something objectively true about morality that grounds it in us so strongly that we will always refuse to do what we know is "bad". But how do we know what is "bad" or "good"? If it isn't our own willy-nilly feelings, and if it isn't what the community wants, and if it isn't God - what could it be? If nothing grounds our morality then we need to stop saying anything including Fred Phelps is bad because there is no objective measure or foundation, everything becomes subjective and all is chaos.
Quote: FrGambleIts a good thought experiment but not for the reason you may think. First of all you can join me by replacing God with whatever you think grounds morality and go through the same torturous question. If not God maybe you think that what gives us morality is the community we live in. What if that community thinks that burning people alive is a good virtuous thing to do? Do you do it or not? And don't say that this is impossible because unlike the Bible's sparse verses which people think are examples of this type of action; human history is truly replete with much worse examples.
The answer is I would not and if I may answer for you, you would not either. The real question then becomes why wouldn't we do it? You haven't disproved there needs to be something to objectively ground our morality, in fact you just proved it. There must be something objectively true about morality that grounds it in us so strongly that we will always refuse to do what we know is "bad". But how do we know what is "bad" or "good"? If it isn't our own willy-nilly feelings, and if it isn't what the community wants, and if it isn't God - what could it be? If nothing grounds our morality then we need to stop saying anything including Fred Phelps is bad because there is no objective measure or foundation, everything becomes subjective and all is chaos.
I never said morality was necessarily based on community. I think there are objective goods, even if we don't always know what they are, all I am saying is they do not come from God. Socrates in Euthyphro posed the question is what is good good because God loves it or does God love it because it is good. If a God exist I would say it was the second.
Just as I don't need God to define objective truths like 2+2=4 I don't need them to define morality. Utilitarianism, which I personally believe is the best source of morality, does not rely on God it relies on a single moral precept that "good is that which maximizes happiness or utility", for some definitions of happiness and utility, I believe this to be true even without any God commanding it just like I believe 2+2=4 without having any pronouncement on high. Now I will admit I may be wrong about that but it is not because a God is needed for morality to exist I would be wrong simply because I believed a false premise to be true. Just as someone who says 2+2=5 is wrong not because we need God to define addition but because he believes in a false premise.
I mean if you define God to be the source of object truth then of course you can say God is needed for the pronouncement of objective morality but you have no reason to believe that the source of objective truth has any of the characteristics you want to imbibe God with let alone those necessary for the Christian God.
Morality is an artifact of natural selection, it has no grounds. This is why morality does not need religion. What we call "morality" is part of our genetic stuff, just like the propensity for illusory pattern perception.Quote: FrGambleFirst of all you can join me by replacing God with whatever you think grounds morality and go through the same torturous question.
Now, take individual human life as the standard. Why? Becasue we all want to have good, prosperous, happy lives. Essentially that's what one lives for, one's own life.
Now, what does such a life require? Taking very much into consideration a moral code is uiversal rather than eprsonal. That is, you cannot simply proclaim yourself supreme and take whatever you want from others, nor treat others in any way you want. if you do, you grant them the same right to take anything that is yours,a dn to treat you in whatever manner they wish.
With these two requirements, you can build a moral code by using reasona nd observation. No gods required.
A morality dictated by a god is entirely, 100% subjective, not to mention incongrous and very likely self-contradictory. That's why Chrisitans can spout virtuously how God or Jesus are all about love, while murdering innocent people in the Crusades and INquisition in the name of that love. In the end all such moral codes are concatenations of the opinions of whoever got to be more popular and has the more staying power. Then there's the whole picking and choosing thing we all know.
I don't care much for that equation. For me, "creative" far exceeds everything else. I wake up each day thinking "what don't I know?" or "what can I get better at?" "Good" and "happy" rarely enter my mind.Quote: NareedWe all want to have good, prosperous, happy lives.
Quote: teliotI don't care much for that equation. For me, "creative" far exceeds everything else. I wake up each day thinking "what don't I know?" or "what can I get better at?" "Good" and "happy" rarely enter my mind.
So learning somehting new makes you misserable but you do it anyway?
I can't believe that.
What would I do if not get better at, create, or learn, stuff?Quote: NareedSo learning somehting new makes you misserable but you do it anyway?
I can't believe that.
Quote: teliotI read a lot of Schopenhauer in my day. I like Stephen Batchelor's books on Buddhism. P.D. Ouspensky wrote some good stuff. I read "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass stoned on LSD. That was quite something. "Autobiography of a Yogi" was a bit over the top. Aristotle and classical philosophy was mostly college stuff. I really like the poetry of Billy Collins. I'm going to see him next month.
Who would you recommend?
I'd like to suggest you start with Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought."
Thanks for introducing me to the poetry of Billy Collins I can't wait to read some more. Schopenhauer I've studied but not read much of and the rest of the guys I haven't heard of.
I would recommend Bernard Lonergan's "Insight: A Study of Human Understanding". A little lighter reading would be the Socrates series by Peter Kreeft. Two in particular that would be good reads for you are: "Socrates meets Hume" and "Socrates meets Kant". Both of these books are written in dialogue form and are fun. I feel like returning the favor in regards to poetry so if you haven't read any Gerard Manley Hopkins you might like him and I think you would very much like some of the short stories of Flannery O'Connor.
I read some of O'Connor's short stories about 40 years ago -- completely forgot it by now. I never read Hopkins. I'm always looking for a good poet. Most of what I read is contemporary.Quote: FrGambleThanks for introducing me to the poetry of Billy Collins I can't wait to read some more ... I feel like returning the favor in regards to poetry so if you haven't read any Gerard Manley Hopkins you might like him and I think you would very much like some of the short stories of Flannery O'Connor.
Lonergan is definitely heady stuff, I don't really feel up to that.
I went to Amazon where there was a review of "Socrates meets Hume" that read, "I was hopeful that Kreeft's writings would be something that I could give to one of my atheist friends to bolster my arguments. Sadly, while I enjoy reading Kreeft, after reading this book I feel like I need to keep searching ..." These books look like good reading, though. I'll pick one up on your recommendation.
