Quote Originally Posted by DrivenMind


"Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logic and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience." - Leonard Peikoff

These are some of the books I've been reading over the past two or three months, on the subject that have helped me understand what it means to be religious, and to believe in religion.

Recommended Reading:

The God Delusion
- Richard Dawkins

Breaking the Spell
-Daniel Dennett

The End of Faith
- Sam Harris

God is Not Great
- Christopher Hitchens

Atheist Universe
- David Mills

Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
- Christopher Hitchens

The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in The Dark
- Carl Sagan

The Age of Reason
-Thomas Paine
I didnt' want to over burden this thread as i occasionally do, but...

response: Your quote from Peikoff.

first off remember that even Peikoff is a product of predetermined factors. This is a man who was groomed and shaped by one of the most reknowned atheists in recent history. Ayn Rand whose education was formulated before the explosion of social sciences in Russia. So of course the idea and thoughts on social environment relating to her pupil will be skewed to that avail. Much like that of the religious mind. My point is again, sciences and religion are both a product of faith and those views are shaped by a persons surrounds and because our experiences are limited thus our ability to really have a free will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZgr9jrQQ9w
In this clip. Peikoff demonstrates the opposite of his point. he has a caller on the phone who he wants to prove an ability of free choice. The determinant factors of what happen in this clip are laid out in that had this person not called Peikoff, he would have never made the choice to pick up the glass of milk and hold onto it. So even in this clip the outside influence (peikoff) is proven to shape the choice that is made by the caller.


I dont' know most of those authors, but I do know that Christopher Hitchens is not remotely a good person to be taking "scientific or proven advice from" he has countless debates where he fails to be able to formulate an argument against God or religion without making a mockery to the foundation of the beliefs he is debating. If he cannot understand them in their context then he is unequipped to debate them. Look up his debate with his brother, read reviews (even from atheists) of his books, specifically the one you listed. He gets it handed to him regularly.

Carl Sagan...i know a little about him, and he would not have been so quick to jump on the science is key discussion with atheists/thiests. And he wouldn't have been so quick to deny the reasonings of faith for the individual. He viewed science in much the same scope as religion. A poor understanding of either can be destructive. He feared that science would eventually be widely viewed as fact because it could lead the world down a bad path. Im not sure how you are trying to represent him here.

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." Carl Sagan

Lastly, Peter Hithcens is Christopher Hitchens' brother. He has some very interesting points to make in this debate with his brother. He has also debate Dawkins on his world view and the role of religion in the world.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...64402847701526
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66699758&hl=en