Some help with philosophy please?

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
a reply to: RussianTroll

I like this advice, I know occams, but never heard of poppers criterion. Thanks very much will read up tonight 👍🏼

Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research. He says: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”

Why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? “The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes Dr. Popper, is that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”

The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative​—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride? Atheist Aldous Huxley’s admission reveals another possibility, when he says: “We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Is evolution a scientific fact? No.

Is it a testable scientific theory? No.

Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.

Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many believe it?

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

...

You said:

Was the earth created? or formed naturally?

Science says one thing, religion says the other.

It is evolutionary philosophy and its philosophers and promoters (marketeers basically) posing as 'scientists' that claims/claim the earth formed by natural processes or causation exclusively; not "science", science says no such thing (not even in a figurative sense). The right type of science/knowledge 'tells us' another story ('tells us', as in demonstrates by means of the evidence, I'm responding by partially sticking to your figurative use of language). It points towards Creation. Don't forget:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Source: Scientist - Wikipedia

P.S. you're not awake (just a heads-up, not to poke fun at your accountname or to ridicule; your accountname seems to imply that you would like to be and think you already are, that'll make it harder to actually awake. Sort of like when you have a nightmare, and you dream that you're waking up, but the nightmare ain't over yet. Or I remember as a kid occasionally dreaming that I was getting up to go to the toilet, then ending up peeing in my bed; that particular illusion of already having woken up usually sucks.)

I recommend this article series (in particular the part I'm linking, it has 6 parts):

Part 4 Science​—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth

Some additional recommended reading based on your commentary (with a description of the topic, the first topic related to your absolute claim about "absolutes"):

belief that truth is unattainable: w95 4/15 3-5; w95 7/1 4
...
Enlightenment movement (17th-18th centuries): w06 7/1 3-4; g89 10/8 21-22

Source: Philosophy

Now that last one is part of a 24-part series called:

Religion’s Future in View of Its Past (links to all parts)

Which covers a lot of religious philosophy. Including those streams of religious philosophy giving rise to pantheism, philosophical naturalism and evolutionary philosophies (note the quotation from Professor James Shapiro after 0:53 in the video below, similar to what Dr. Popper said about the subject):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2; playlist link)

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
a reply to: Raggedyman

This is great thank you, it it difficult/heavy reading though? Sorry, I should have mentioned I was really looking for the easier stuff to start with.

Many thanks

Probably, cause his writings are over 150 years old, so his (Kierkegaard's) way of talking may be a bit tricky to follow.

In the closing days of his life, Søren Kierkegaard issued a blast at official Christendom from which she has never cleared herself. He charged Christendom with open hypocrisy. He declared that Christendom’s “Christianity” was meaningless, existing in name only, while “we live a life of paganism.” Christendom has not ventured defiantly or revolted openly against Christianity. Oh no! Rather she has hypocritically and knavishly done away with Christianity by falsifying the definition of what is Christian. Christendom is playing Christianity, taking God for a fool. Christianity of the “New Testament” variety does not exist in her, he said. These are strong accusations. What moved him to take such a position?

Søren Kierkegaard was born in Copenhagen on May 5, 1813. According to his father’s wish, Søren studied theology. However, during his student years he was not sure whether he should become a Christian or not. In fact, it was not clear to him what a Christian was. For more than ten years he compared Christendom with his studies of the Bible. During this time he claimed to be a pet and disguised himself behind several pseudonyms. Triviality, indifference, compromise, hypocrisy were disgusting things to him.

Kierkegaard appears to have accepted Christianity as the true religion without question. He expressed faith in the Bible as God’s Word. Even though Bible criticism was present, it did not seem to affect him. To argue for or against Christianity by means of external proofs was folly, as far as he was concerned. Men must have faith. To preach in such a way that salvation appears sure is to soft-pedal Christianity, he stated. In a sense it is making the narrow way appear broad and easy when in reality it is not. Christianity is to be lived for what it is, not for rewards and promotions.

What Kierkegaard observed in Christendom was not what he knew true Christianity to be. This became a disturbing factor in his life. He knew of priests and bishops who would not speak out for truth, even after it was called to their attention. His father’s priest, ruler of the Danish State Church as the Bishop of Zealand, Bishop Mynster, was a great disappointment to him.

On January 30, 1854, Bishop Mynster died. The highly esteemed theologian Professor Martensen conducted the funeral. In his sermon he praised Mynster as “a witness to the truth,” and as one of “the holy chain of witnesses to the truth.” This was too much for Kierkegaard. He sat down and wrote his protest, but he waited till Martensen had been elected as the bishop’s successor before launching his attack. Once his attack got under way, it took the nation by storm. He published a series of articles in the newspaper Fædrelandet and followed up with a periodical, which he called The Instant. In the space of a few months he accomplished an enormous work. It drained him of the last of his energy. He died shortly thereafter, November, 1855.

Kierkegaard also attacked the popular conception that Denmark is a Christian land, that all are Christians. He directed the world’s attention to Jesus’ words at Matthew 7:13, 14. Here Jesus speaks of the road to life as being narrow and cramped “and few are the ones finding it.” To speak of all Denmark as being Christian means that the way is as broad as it possibly can be. In fact, it cannot be any broader, “since it is the way in which we all are walking,” said Kierkegaard. If this be true, then Jesus’ words are false. The human race is to be congratulated for having bettered itself by becoming Christianized even beyond what its Founder imagined. If this be the case, then the “New Testament” is no longer truth. But it is quite obvious such is not the case. Christendom has a long way to go before she can be Christian.

Kierkegaard continues: “What we have before us is not Christianity but a prodigious illusion, and the people are not pagans but live in the blissful conceit that they are Christians. So if in this situation Christianity is to be introduced, first of all the illusion must be disposed of.” This led him to an attack on the machinery of baby baptism, confirmation and the idea that all respectable adults must marry and rear their children as Christians instead of teaching them to become Christians. In one of his articles he stated that Christendom “is from generation to generation a society of non-Christians.” In another he blasted Protestantism. “Protestantism, Christianly considered,” he said, “is quite simply an untruth, a piece of dishonesty, which falsifies the teaching, the word-view, the life-view of Christianity, just as soon as it is regarded as a principle for Christianity, not as a remedy [corrective] at a given time and place.” He called Christendom “the betrayal of Christianity; a ‘Christian world’ is . . . apostasy from Christianity.”

Note that his attack is against Christendom, not against the church. “We have, if you will, a complete crew of bishops, deans, and priests; learned men, eminently learned, talented, gifted, humanly well-meaning; they all declaim—doing it well, very well, eminently well, or tolerably well, or badly—but not one of them is in the character of the Christianity of the New Testament.” “And this in my opinion is the falsification of which official Christianity is guilty: it does not frankly and unreservedly make known the Christian requirement—perhaps because it is afraid people would shudder to see at what a distance from it we are living, without being able to claim that in the remotest way our life might be called an effort in the direction of fulfilling the requirement.”

Christianity does not march to the tune of “Merrily we roll along, roll along, roll along.” Christianity is “incendiarism.” Christ himself says, “‘I am come to set fire on the earth,’ and it is already burning, yea, and it is doubtless becoming a consuming conflagration, best likened to a forest fire, for it is ‘Christendom’ that is set on fire. And it is the prolixities which have to go, the prodigiously prolix illusion fostered by the (well-meant or knavish) introduction of scientific learning into the Christian field.” “The official worship of God (with the claim of being the Christianity of the New Testament) is, Christianly, a counterfeit, a forgery.” This forgery is so deeply ingrained that doubtless there even are priests who believe that Christendom is the Christianity of the apostles’ day, when in truth it has become exactly the opposite.

Kierkegaard declared that men in long robes have deluded women and children into thinking that Christ spoke favorably of themselves as teachers. Official Christianity no more resembles Christianity of Jesus’ day than a square resembles a circle; “and what we call a teacher in Christianity (a priest) no more resembles what the New Testament understands by a teacher in Christianity, no more resembles it than a chest of drawers resembles a dancer, has no more relation to what the New Testament understands by a teacher’s task than a chest of drawers has to dancing.”

Kierkegaard closed his attack by saying: “Whoever thou art, whatever in other respects thy life may be, my friend, by ceasing to take part (if ordinarily thou dost) in the public worship of God, as it now is (with the claim that it is the Christianity of the New Testament), thou hast constantly one guilt the less, and that a great one: thou dost not take part in treating God as a fool by calling that the Christianity of the New Testament which is not the Christianity of the New Testament.” “This has to be said; so be it now said.”

Kierkegaard was not out to upset the Church organization or to form a new religion. Apparently he was not interested in doctrine. His attack was directed, not against the teachings of the clergy, but against their not practicing what they preached. As powerful as his attack was, it for the most part fell on deaf ears. People looked upon it with indifference. They regarded his attack as morbid. Writers spoke of him as manio-depressive and said that his principles were far from spotless. Doubtless, people need more than to be told they are wrong.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
a reply to: RussianTroll

I like this advice, I know occams, but never heard of poppers criterion. Thanks very much will read up tonight 👍🏼

Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research. He says: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”

Why, then, do so many scientists believe evolution? “The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes Dr. Popper, is that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”

The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative​—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride? Atheist Aldous Huxley’s admission reveals another possibility, when he says: “We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Is evolution a scientific fact? No.

Is it a testable scientific theory? No.

Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.

Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many believe it?

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

...

You said:

Was the earth created? or formed naturally?

Science says one thing, religion says the other.

It is evolutionary philosophy and its philosophers and promoters (marketeers basically) posing as 'scientists' that claims/claim the earth formed by natural processes or causation exclusively; not "science", science says no such thing (not even in a figurative sense). The right type of science/knowledge 'tells us' another story ('tells us', as in demonstrates by means of the evidence, I'm responding by partially sticking to your figurative use of language). It points towards Creation. Don't forget:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Source: Scientist - Wikipedia

P.S. you're not awake (just a heads-up, not to poke fun at your accountname or to ridicule; your accountname seems to imply that you would like to be and think you already are, that'll make it harder to actually awake. Sort of like when you have a nightmare, and you dream that you're waking up, but the nightmare ain't over yet. Or I remember as a kid occasionally dreaming that I was getting up to go to the toilet, then ending up peeing in my bed; that particular illusion of already having woken up usually sucks.)

Thanks for the info.

No my user name has nothing to do with that kind of awake, it's to do with walking up to someone else's BS. Understandably misconstrued so that's on me.

Cheers

originally posted by: whereislogic
I recommend this article series (in particular the part I'm linking, it has 6 parts):

Part 4 Science​—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth

Some additional recommended reading based on your commentary (with a description of the topic, the first topic related to your absolute claim about "absolutes"):

belief that truth is unattainable: w95 4/15 3-5; w95 7/1 4
...
Enlightenment movement (17th-18th centuries): w06 7/1 3-4; g89 10/8 21-22

Source: Philosophy

Now that last one is part of a 24-part series called:

Religion’s Future in View of Its Past (links to all parts)

Which covers a lot of religious philosophy. Including those streams of religious philosophy giving rise to pantheism, philosophical naturalism and evolutionary philosophies (note the quotation from Professor James Shapiro after 0:53 in the video below, similar to what Dr. Popper said about the subject):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2; playlist link)

This is great, thank you 👌🏼

a reply to: FinallyAwake

I would start off by getting a few Great Courses on the topic. You can get a monthly subscription and hear/watch a lot of the courses through them. This would allow you to check out more than a few takes on different philosophies while not having to commit a ton of money into buying a bunch of books on them. I still suggest you buy the books too after you figure out where you want to go in your endeavors. SITE LINKED HERE

If you aren't certain if this is something you really want to plunge headlong into, may I suggest "Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)", by Edward Craig?

It is, as the title would suggest, a short read - about 120 pages in paperback.

How ought we to live? What really exists? How do we know? This book introduces important themes in ethics, knowledge, and the self, via readings from Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel, Darwin, and Buddhist writers. It emphasizes throughout the point of studying philosophy, explains how different areas of philosophy are related, and explores the contexts in which philosophy was and is studied.

Its a great starting point to get familiar with some of the bigger names and concepts.

a reply to: FinallyAwake

Philosophy is one of the two "all-embrasive" disciplines, the other being history. Part of what that means is that everything in the world, universe, mind, and emotions falls under both philosophy and history. People who like to do some study of philosophy will have small specialty areas that appeal to them for whatever reason. And that is a good thing. Probably it would take some years and some diligent study to know where you want to focus.

All that being said, I like how you made an immediate priority of clear thinking and expression and dispassionate respectful arguments. To that end, understanding both formal logic and informal logic (logical fallacies, etc) along with disciplined rhetoric is a great starting point. It shouldn't be hard to find books or help online. My brother has written some great beginner texts on all three- formal logic, informal logic, and rhetoric. His books are geared toward secondary students, but that can make them a great introduction.

Often American philosophers have seemed (on the surface at least) to be more concise and to guide the reader more in their argument structure. If you go back in time, philosophy can seem quite meandering and wordy, especially European. It is just a different style and method of approaching thought.

Reading a philosopher who writes with clarity and with an easily traceable method of argumentation can help, of course.

Best of luck, and it sounds like you are well prepared to enjoy your study.

a reply to: whereislogic
You copied and pasted all that post from the Jehovah Witness watch tower.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: FinallyAwake

I would start off by getting a few Great Courses on the topic. You can get a monthly subscription and hear/watch a lot of the courses through them. This would allow you to check out more than a few takes on different philosophies while not having to commit a ton of money into buying a bunch of books on them. I still suggest you buy the books too after you figure out where you want to go in your endeavors. SITE LINKED HERE

Thank you very much, I'll have a look online for the best place to buy them 👌🏼

originally posted by: AndreDoLouro
a reply to: FinallyAwake

Philosophy is one of the two "all-embrasive" disciplines, the other being history. Part of what that means is that everything in the world, universe, mind, and emotions falls under both philosophy and history. People who like to do some study of philosophy will have small specialty areas that appeal to them for whatever reason. And that is a good thing. Probably it would take some years and some diligent study to know where you want to focus.

All that being said, I like how you made an immediate priority of clear thinking and expression and dispassionate respectful arguments. To that end, understanding both formal logic and informal logic (logical fallacies, etc) along with disciplined rhetoric is a great starting point. It shouldn't be hard to find books or help online. My brother has written some great beginner texts on all three- formal logic, informal logic, and rhetoric. His books are geared toward secondary students, but that can make them a great introduction.

Often American philosophers have seemed (on the surface at least) to be more concise and to guide the reader more in their argument structure. If you go back in time, philosophy can seem quite meandering and wordy, especially European. It is just a different style and method of approaching thought.

Reading a philosopher who writes with clarity and with an easily traceable method of argumentation can help, of course.

Best of luck, and it sounds like you are well prepared to enjoy your study.

Thank you for those kind words and very useful info 👌🏼

Where are your brothers books on sale please?

originally posted by: whereislogic
I recommend this article series (in particular the part I'm linking, it has 6 parts):

Part 4 Science​—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth

Some additional recommended reading based on your commentary (with a description of the topic, the first topic related to your absolute claim about "absolutes"):

belief that truth is unattainable: w95 4/15 3-5; w95 7/1 4
...
Enlightenment movement (17th-18th centuries): w06 7/1 3-4; g89 10/8 21-22

Source: Philosophy

Now that last one is part of a 24-part series called:

Religion’s Future in View of Its Past (links to all parts)

Which covers a lot of religious philosophy. Including those streams of religious philosophy giving rise to pantheism, philosophical naturalism and evolutionary philosophies (note the quotation from Professor James Shapiro after 0:53 in the video below, similar to what Dr. Popper said about the subject):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2; playlist link)

Thank you very much! Really appreciated

My first college level philosophy book was...The Age of Reason by Jean-Paul Sartre.

Read the books of the philosopher Michel de Montaigne the most famous writing is the book "Experiments". This work is a number of self-recognition arising from observations and research on themselves. In addition, this custom writings also has and reflections to the author above the essence of the human spirit at all. The philosopher is a writer Michel de Montaigne noted that every person is able to reflect humanity. The thinker chose himself as one of the representatives of the human race and began to study all his mental movement. The philosophical position of Michel de Montaigne is marked as skepticism, but here skepticism acts in special quality.

a reply to: FinallyAwake

When religion falls there is law and where those two clash? Lay philosophy a mode of living with and one that is a lace where you want to become at peace there are many ideations on how to achieve peace... however intuitively, you already knows what brings you peace others knowing that? I likely to create the opposite so divulge one of your peacemakers and see how calm you can be when others intrude on it.

The funny thing is Buddhism has NEVER brought me peace and it is the king of all kings when it comes to philosophy... it brought peace to all warring religions and tribes at one time and it lasted for a very very long time and people trying to recapture that? Sad. However people assuming Buddhism does something for me? Ha done nothing but create war and chaos in all manners for over 30 years now and what is there to say about it when the goal of Buddhism is not saying anything about anything inward or outward for the ultimate in peace?

Peeple suggests that one start by reading Russell. I read Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. One has to take into account that he was an atheist who disparages believers like Hegel. Russell says that modern philosophy must do away with all the Aristotelian deadwood, but ancient Greek thinkers can be impressive, as when Parmenides explains why Being is One.

whatislogic says that Darwinism is flawed. You don't have to be a creationist to find flaws in scientific reasoning. Such flaws are explained in a book by Harvard lawyer Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried -- An Appeal to Reason (Dell, New York, 1971). On the back cover it says: "(...) a carefully documented repudiation of classical Darwinism [that claims] errors have been discovered in the reasoning behind the theory, about which the public has not been informed. (...) many mysteries involving selection, micro-change, and other matters remain unsolved." Then Sir Karl Popper, who has been quoted by someone here, is quoted: " An excellent and fair (...) retrial of Darwin. "

a reply to: quodlibet

Some texts

a reply to: FinallyAwake

I am sure there are a ton of books that you can read to increase your knowledge, but to curb your temperament, I would suggest, listening to what people have to say, then try to accept what they say as truth. When you hit that wall of doubt or disagreement, then try to see why they believe what you believe to be wrong.

It might not work, but I find trying to see things from others point of view, helpful. I deal with adolescents and young adults often. Being an old broad, I had trouble making sense out of how many of them thought, which made assisting them or caring for them difficult. Once I learned to see through their eyes, it was much easier to get my point across, and much easier for them to understand what I was saying.

A conversation should not be about who is right and who is wrong. It doesn't even have to be a debate. You can learn a lot, just by listening and sharing ideas.

a reply to: Crowfoot

What a useful hyperlink! Many years ago I enjoyed reading Aristotle's Metaphysics, which I no longer had, and now the download of a version on the Kindle format of this book was instantaneous on an Amazon tablet and I'll want to re-read it and analyze it thoroughly. A well-known Arabian scholar of the Middle Ages said that he read it 40-something times until he realized that now finally he was able to understand it.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
Finally Awake left ATS on the 9th September 2021.