With the skill of a seasoned journalist and the passion of an amateur sleuth, he moves from scholarly conclave in California to archaeologcal digs in Israel, tracking down the story of the astounding consensus emerging from a varied group of experts.

    Nor is it known whether religious believers and nonbelievers differ in how they evaluate statements of fact. Our lab previously has used functional neuroimaging to study belief as a general mode of cognition [1], and others have looked specifically at religious belief [2]. However, no research has compared these two states of mind directly.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure signal changes in the brains of thirty subjects—fifteen committed Christians and fifteen nonbelievers—as they evaluated the truth and falsity of religious and nonreligious propositions. For both groups, and in both categories of stimuli, belief (judgments of “true” vs judgments of “false”) was associated with greater signal in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area important for self-representation [3], [4], [5], [6], emotional associations [7], reward [8], [9], [10], and goal-driven behavior [11]. This region showed greater signal whether subjects believed statements about God, the Virgin Birth, etc. or statements about ordinary facts. A comparison of both stimulus categories suggests that religious thinking is more associated with brain regions that govern emotion, self-representation, and cognitive conflict, while thinking about ordinary facts is more reliant upon memory retrieval networks.Conclusions/SignificanceWhile religious and nonreligious thinking differentially engage broad regions of the frontal, parietal, and medial temporal lobes, the difference between belief and disbelief appears to be content-independent. Our study compares religious thinking with ordinary cognition and, as such, constitutes a step toward developing a neuropsychology of religion. However, these findings may also further our understanding of how the brain accepts statements of all kinds to be valid descriptions of the world.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments: Sam Harris, Jonas T. Kaplan, Marco Iacoboni, Mark S. Cohen. Performed the experiments: Jonas T. Kaplan. Analyzed the data: Sam Harris, Jonas T. Kaplan, Marco Iacoboni, Mark S. Cohen. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: Marco Iacoboni, Mark S. Cohen. Wrote the paper: Sam Harris, Jonas T. Kaplan. Performed all subject recruitment, telephone screenings, and psychometric assessments prior to scanning: Ashley Curiel. Supervised our psychological assessment procedures and consulted on subject exclusions: Susan Y. Bookheimer. Gave extensive notes on the manuscript: Mark S. Cohen, Marco Iacoboni.

    Discussing philosophy's ability to clarifyour thoughts, he explains why such clarification depends on the development of philosophical theories, and how those theories can be tested by imaginative thought experiments, and compared against each other by standards similar to those used in the natural and social sciences. He also shows howlogical rigor can be understood as a way of enhancing the explanatory power of philosophical theories.Drawing on the history of philosophy to provide a track record of philosophical thinking's successes and failures, Williams overturns widely held dogmas about the distinctive nature of philosophy in comparison to the sciences, demystifies its methods, and considers the future of the discipline. Fromthought experiments, to deduction, to theories, this little book will cause you to totally rethink what philosophy is.

    In this devastating critique of the anti-theistic arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michel Onfray, Day skillfully demonstrates to even the most skeptical reader that the New Atheists are no champions of Reason, but rather abandon Reason in their arguments against religion. Drawing upon history and philosophers from Socrates to Tupac Shakur, Vox Day combines intellectual precision with wit in presenting a powerful defense of religion’s rightful place in modern society.

    Science often claims to explain nature without including God at all. And thinking Christians often feel forced to choose between the two. But the good news is that we don't have to make a choice. Science does not overthrow the Bible. Faith does not require rejecting science. World-renowned scientist Francis Collins, author of The Language of God, along with fellow scientist Karl Giberson show how we can embrace both. Their fascinating treatment explains how God cares for and interacts with his creation while science offers a reliable way to understand the world he made. Together they clearly answer dozens of the most common questions people ask about Darwin, evolution, the age of the earth, the Bible, the existence of God and our finely tuned universe. They also consider how their views stack up against the new atheists as well as against creationists and adherents of intelligent design. The authors disentangle the false conclusions of Christians and atheists alike about science and evolution from the actual results of research in astronomy, physics, geology and genetics. In its place they find a story of the grandeur and beauty of a world made by a supremely creative God.

    It was an open letter, passed to all Catholic bishops, that addressed the condition of the working classes.It discussed the relationships and mutual duties between labor and capital, as well as government and its citizens. Of primary concern was the need for some amelioration of "The misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class." It supported the rights of labor to form unions, rejected socialism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property."Rerum Novarum" is considered a foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching. Many of the positions in Rerum novarum were supplemented by later encyclicals, in particular Pius XI's Quadragesimo anno (1931), John XXIII's Mater et magistra (1961), and John Paul II's Centesimus annus (1991).

    Many of the major philosophical movements of the twentieth century - from existentialism to analytic philosophy - grew out of reactions against Hegel. He is also one of the hardest philosophers to understand and his complex ideas, though rewarding, are often misunderstood.In this magisterial and lucid introduction, Frederick Beiser covers every major aspect of Hegel's thought. He places Hegel in the historical context of nineteenth-century Germany whilst clarifying the deep insights and originality of Hegel's philosophy.A masterpiece of clarity and scholarship, Hegel is both the ideal starting point for those coming to Hegel for the first time and essential reading for any student or scholar of nineteenth century philosophy.Additional features: glossary chapter summaries chronology annotated further reading.

    With an estimated word count of well over 700,000 words, the book is not an undertaking for the casual reader. The book can be a very tedious and boring read. This turns many people off from wanting to commit any time to understanding the foundational doctrine of Christianity. However, as atheists we really need to have at least a basic understanding of the Bible if we are going to make a judgment call about the religion. No matter which sect of Christianity someone subscribes to, the Bible is the foundation of Christian belief. This book is a mere 7,000 words to tell a slimmed down version of the basic story of the Bible. This book focused on the narrative rather than any underlying allegory or metaphor inherent in the narrative. The author attempts to challenge the notion of biblical literalism by showing that the story in its most basic form is simply too fantastic for any rational person to believe.