Atheism 101 (how to train an atheist to take on the world, and win)

. . . PS you owe us a big favour.

(1) A. F. Chalmers: What is this thing called Science? 3rd Edition UQP Paper Backs. 2007
This is your most important text. If you only read one text read this, if you read two, read Kuhn first, then read this. This will give you the basic philosophical training for induction/deduction, the foundations, limits, and sophistications of falsification, Kuhn’s paradigms, Bayesian equations, Feyerabend, foundations in realism & the new experimentalism. Its written by a research physicist, and will give you the philosophy of science from the scientific epistemic foundations from the inside out. Study it like a text book (notes, &c)

(2) Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Third edition. Chicago Press, 1996.
Read this from start to finish, a bit like a novel. Don’t focus too hard on the details, but pay attention to the structural forms of paradigms, and their social/ historical predicates, the way they form, and the underlying problem with uncovering truth, premises, and assumptions in your normal phase of science. Read this one first, as it will give you a solid foundation to the history and development of science, the scientific method, and the general method of discourse it takes in its development.

If you only read/ study these two books you will have the epistemic, and philosophical training/discipline to argue your atheist view point (if you still hold it) consistently, and strongly in almost any serious minded community.

(3) Alfred Jules Ayer Language, Truth and Logic: Pelican Classics, 1944
This is a brilliantly written work on induction, and will introduce you to predicates, synthetic analytic/ criteria, Hume’s folk, the problem of demarcation, your criteria for metaphysics, a priori, and a posteria knowledge. You’ll need to know this if you don’t want your atheist position to end up as so much metaphysics, which is where it’s headed now.

(4) Rudolf Carnap: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Dover Books. 1966.
It might help to get a book with a general/philosophical/historical introduction to the Positivism, Logical positivism, and the Vienna circle, or maybe just Wiki/ phil dictionary it. You want to read Chapters 1 – 4, 18 deals with Kant’s Synthetic A Priori, Part 5, and you might want to have a look at Chapter 30, in part six which deals with Indeterminism in Quantum Physics.

(5) There are a couple of different collections of Karl Popper’s major papers, the best is probably the one edited by David Miller, and published by Fontana, have a look at his 1954 Paper’s on the problem of induction (it will summarise the Hume position, and show you how he solved it, important if you want to maintain an atheist position) look at the 1974 Papers on the demarcation problem, you’ll see why when you get there. – You’ll also find the 1934 papers on the scientific method useful, the growth of scientific knowledge (1960) subjective versus objective knowledge (1967) evolutionary epistemology (1973) Natural selection and its scientific status (1973) pay careful attention to what he says about metaphysics, as this is a very real problem alive in science at the moment.



Extended bibliography

These are specific references to sections you should look up if/when the chance presents itself. If you really want to get to grips with the foundations of the scientific method, it’s epistemology and the importance of its development to your major sciences

Cohen, Morris, R. Nagel, Ernest. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. (New York, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1934,)

Section XIV
Probability and induction 273 - 286
Gives a good in-depth introduction to scientific induction from a primary source, laying out the methodology, as it was then used and taught. Same year as Popper’s papers were first published, so it gives a precise picture of what the currant mood/method was like.

Gross, Barry, R. Analytic Philosophy. An Historical Introduction. (New York, Pegasus, 1970)

Pages 106 – 140 gives a break down of the Hemple article, and the problems associated with induction, verifiability, et cetera. Really good introduction, gives a brief introduction to some of Carnap’s main concerns and principles, but also deals with Schlick, and the underlying problem of verifiability and inferance.

Madden, Edward, H. The Structure of Scientific Thought, (London, Routledge, Kegan and Paul 1968)

Collection of articles and writings on the philosophy of science, and the riddle of induction.

“Of the Grounds of induction” – J.S. Mill Pg 293 – 296
“Induction as experimental and self corrective.” Charles S. Pierce 296 – 299
“Non-demonstrative Inference and Induction” Bertrand Russel Pg 322- 324

Gives different formulations of Hume’s problem, also John Hospers text book, the section on induction and causality.



General texts

These are general texts you should probably be familiar with if you want to take an atheist position seriously.

Lucretius: De Re Rum Natura: (Get the R.E. Lathan Translation)
This is a bit like an ancient text book of Greek Physics, it delves into atomic theory, evolution, and is probably the first real atheist text that deals with radical materialism, at least as far as the Western Tradition is concerned.

David Hume: Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
Probably the most important book written on the topic of atheism, it systematically destroys all of the traditional arguments laid out in metaphysics and epistemology on the topic. You can read it on its own, or if you really want to go deep into the topic, read it with a copy of the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding, which will give you deep epistemic, and causal problems Hume recognised, that science today still hasn’t dealt with.

G.E. Moore: Principia Ethica
This is a moral groundwork laid out which changed the structure of ethics, science and epistemology by one the founding fathers of analytic philosophy. It was destructive to traditional Christian ethics and metaphysics, and today still ahs your best arguments and foundations.

Ernst Mayr: One Long argument
This will give you the full history of the Darwin/Malthus hypotheisis. Mayr develops his own revolutionary position, as a contemporary of Kuhn, which he discusses in the book, and which he analyses the history and details again, if you’ve read Kuhn, this is a solid book to read if you want to argue Darwin/biology and evolution against anyone from its historical and epistemic background. A few others worth reading if you want to know your history, are The Darwin Wars, by Andrew Brown, Darwin’s forgotten Defenders by David N Livingstone, is a decent account of the actual shifts and arguments between Darwin’s defenders and theological and evangelical thinkers.

Eliott Sober, Philosophy of Biology
This is one of the standard (and probably the best) text book used in university Bachelor of Science courses, but you’ll probably need some high school biology text books if you want to read it end to end. The second revised edition has chapters that deal with the latest break through, bioethics, systematics. It’s probably the best, because Sober considers the Creationists arguments, and shows you where the holes are, the problems, and the flaws.

Conrad Loranz: On Aggression
If you really want to take this socio biology stuff seriously, then Conrad Loranz is probably the best place to start, on aggression is probably his best work, I’ve read all of them, this one deals with the basis of your socio-biology, and evolutionary psychology nonsense. You might as well grab a copy of Casebeer’s ethical facts, it summarises and deals with: Larry Wrights etiological and biological cauality, Boyd’s property clusters, the cognition-function approach, Robert Cummins, and the rest of that group but it’s speculative philosophy at best, you’d be better off just grabbing a copy of J.L. Makie’s Inventing right and Wrong, or Baier’s The Moral Point of View, and branch out into metaethics, or fuck it, if you really want something metaethically interesting, have a read of old Herbert Spencer’s massive eight volume system, though you can get an epitome summarised by, - fuck, what’s his name, something Collins, though its theistic positivism, which anyone who hasn’t read him will tell you should be a contradiction.

You’re going to run into a few problems with the mind-body debate, when you start fucking around with biology and ethics, two books probably deal with this the best way, that’s Searle’s: Mind, Brains and Science, and Heidegger’s lectures on Kant and Aristotle, translated by Ted Saddler (The Essence of Human Freedom)

There are a few other problems you’ll end up at this end of the ball park, which are serious problems for atheists, that is how is evolution able to produce a creature capable of understanding evolution without a purposive function, how is it we just happen to have evolved to a capacity to deal with abstract number planes and high order mathematics, which just happens to correspond to universal functions and realities by natural selection, what is the nature of necessary and contingent existence, what are the foundations of empiricism, and so on, which all hook straight into the mind/body problem, I can give you a couple of references to these when you get there if you're interested.