/lit/ - Literature

>>23052849
It's not what you fear it is, it's not posturing and vulgar. But it's not very good, it's very low level. You're better of reading Vico's "New Science" and Cassirer's "Language and Myth" on the historical psychology of god and myth making, newer ancient history books like Mark Smith's "Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel," John Day's "Yahweh And The Gods And Goddesses of Canaan," and Russell Gmirkin's "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible."

Philosophically Schelling's freedom essay presents the most interesting and viable theology: that god is the chaos (ungrund) as well as the form, and that the universe begins with an act of will. Hegel's "Early Theological Writings" critiques the problems of the social applications of Christianity better than the new athiests do, and his "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion" give a strong philosophical history of religion. Feuerbach "The Essence of Christianity" puts forwards Dawkins and Hitchens arguments on the personal and social harms of god as a concept much better than they do.

Back to vulgar athiesm, pic is good, despite the title, as a science book to explode vulgar athiest assumptions that scientific naturalism has worked everything out about the universe, and the full scope of the fine tuning problem which vulgar atheism handwaves away.