Reading the works of your opponents

[Volenta]

When I'm watching debates I have no trouble listening to people I disagree with, because I know they will be rebutted by the other debater(s). Watching debates help to improve your debating skills, and it's just fun to watch. But I don't particularly have much interest in reading the works of Christians, creationists, dualists, libertarians (free will), meat apologetics, and so on. Maybe partly because I think I get frustrated, but particularly because I don't want to waste money (and also don't want to support the writers, but of course there is also used goods) and time on it.

Some books get praised a lot by the 'opposition' and I wonder whether it is good to sometimes pick it up and read it from the other sides perspective. It might help you in getting it more clear why it is you're disagreeing, and also to avoid attacking a straw man.

What are your thoughts on it? Do you read your opponent's work?

[brimstoneSalad]

Just things I can get for free online. I don't buy their books.

They're not really saying anything new, so if you read somebody more intelligent and eloquent like Aquinas (from whom most of them are stealing, and badly), you'll have a pretty good foundation. It's more useful than reading a bad copy of a bad copy of the original.

[Volenta]

They're not really saying anything new, so if you read somebody more intelligent and eloquent like Aquinas (from whom most of them are stealing, and badly), you'll have a pretty good foundation. It's more useful than reading a bad copy of a bad copy of the original.

I think the theologians have made some progress since then, maybe not particularly compelling, but still. I wouldn't dismiss it all as copycats. What about some works that are now coming to my mind:
- Anthony Flew that changes his position from atheism to deism
- Thomas Nagel's attack on neo-darwinian materialism
- Stephen C. Meyer's highly rated Intelligent Design books

[Soycrates]

more intelligent and eloquent like Aquinas

Aquinas? Intelligent? Eloquent?

Since when? This is news to me.

(I agree that Flew's arguments are actually quite decent, though!)

[brimstoneSalad]

Aquinas? Intelligent? Eloquent?

Since when? This is news to me.

I'm speaking relatively, here. Obviously all theists' arguments suck, otherwise we wouldn't be atheists.

The theists of antiquity at least had a little more excuse for believing, prior to the age of reason and enlightenment, and modern science.

Can you put forward a theist you consider more competent?

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh, and it can be worth while to read a bit of the canon of some of the major religious groups. Some of them have pretty comprehensive online copies, like the Catholic Encyclopedias.

[Soycrates]

Aquinas took most of his concepts from Aristotle. Other than Aquinas, I would definitely suggest people read a little bit of William of Ockham's stuff (since he was versed in logic, it makes his arguments just a little more poignant). Plantinga is also a decent (and not totally infuriating, like William Lane Craig) source of a mixture of beliefs including his apologetics.

[brimstoneSalad]

Aquinas took most of his concepts from Aristotle.

Aristotle is great to study, although neither he nor Plato were Christians (although they make up much of the metaphysical foundations that the church adopted), I feel like Aquinas is probably more relevant today.

Other than Aquinas, I would definitely suggest people read a little bit of William of Ockham's stuff (since he was versed in logic, it makes his arguments just a little more poignant).

Isn't his theology fideistic rather than rationalistic? I thought he fell more in the 'non-overlapping-magisterium' camp.
Fideistic arguments are non-arguments.

While it may seem more rational on the face of things to admit when something can't be reasoned or rationally understood, I find him all the less rational on the whole of believing it nonetheless.
Although the rationalists made fantastically bad arguments once you break them down, I respect them for trying, and holding to the notion that the universe is inherently rational (which is a point of commonality by which I can relate to them).

Plantinga is also a decent (and not totally infuriating, like William Lane Craig) source of a mixture of beliefs including his apologetics.

Never heard of him.
I'm interested in reading more/hearing some of his arguments if you think he has some good ones. Know of any good online text, videos, or podcasts he's done?

[Volenta]

(I agree that Flew's arguments are actually quite decent, though!)

He mostly focused on the argument from design. Arguments made by intelligent design people generally don't really hold much water. Inserting a God out of nowhere because something seems to be so called 'irreducibly complex' is a big argument from ignorance (I know they deny this, but I can't make anything better out of it).

That being said, it might be interesting to read about how a great contributor to atheism changed his position.

[brimstoneSalad]

That being said, it might be interesting to read about how a great contributor to atheism changed his position.

If you look at the time line there, it may have been largely due to dementia, which is a scary thought. Are we all at risk of believing absurdities as we become senile, and then dumping on our life's work?

At least he became a god-of-the-gaps impersonal deity deist rather than a theist proper.

His arguments are terrible though, and amount to argument from scientific ignorance as far as I can tell.