Lived faith involves more than doctrines, evidences and rational coherence. In this book philosopher Clifford Williams puts forth an argument as to why certain needs, desires and emotions have a legitimate place in drawing people into faith in God. Addressing the strongest objections to these types of reasons, he shows how the personal and experiential aspects of belief play an important part in coming to faith and in remaining a believing person. These existential elements are neither irrelevant to belief nor do they undermine the legitimacy of a reasoned faith, as critics often charge--and Williams shows why. Here is a much needed complement to evidential approaches to apologetics.
Existential Reasons for Belief in God
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"We humans--most of us, anyway, most of the time--are rational, truth-seeking agents. But equally we are emotional creatures with existential needs, and we seek to meet those needs. Traditional Christian apologetics focuses on the former characteristic, offering evidence to believe that the Christian faith is true. Clifford Williams calls our attention to a second approach, one aimed at the second characteristic. Echoing thinkers such as Pascal and Kierkegaard, Williams's 'existential argument' shows that Christian faith can be justified--we may properly believe--just because faith satisfies certain existential needs. Williams develops his argument in a philosophically rich way, augmented with examples showing how for many people faith is engendered and sustained by existential arguments. Deep insights abound as Williams considers and rejects common objections to existential arguments. In the end, Williams doesn't reject evidential arguments, but urges us to pay closer attention to our emotional needs and their role in faith formation. I highly recommend this significant addition to the apologetic literature." (Garrett J. DeWeese, Professor of Philosophy and Philosophical Theology, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University)
"Clifford Williams's work is a powerful defense of the role that needs and emotions play in the formation and preservation of religious faith. Williams gives a powerful account of the way reason and emotion work together to produce a faith that is both rational and personal. Although the book is philosophically first-rate, it is written so clearly and powerfully that any thoughtful person can follow the argument. The inclusion of many personal stories gives the book added punch; Williams not only thinks about emotions but appeals to our emotions in an engaging manner." (C. Stephen Evans, University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Baylor University)
"Williams breathes new life into the provocative view that human emotions play a central role in legitimate belief in God. Drawing from Kierkegaard and Unamuno, he dares to portray belief in God as something much more personally robust and engaging than a mere solution to an intellectual puzzle. The book will benefit all serious inquirers regarding belief in God." (Paul K. Moser, Loyola University Chicago)
"Clifford Williams has composed an engaging, profoundly personal account of the reasons for belief in the God of Christianity. This is decidedly not a detached or merely academic work but a book that speaks directly to the needs, emotions and best thinking of its readers." (Charles Taliaferro, professor of philosophy, St. Olaf College)
"Clifford Williams's work is a powerful defense of the role that needs and emotions play in the formation and preservation of religious faith. Williams gives a powerful account of the way reason and emotion work together to produce a faith that is both rational and personal. Although the book is philosophically first-rate, it is written so clearly and powerfully that any thoughtful person can follow the argument. The inclusion of many personal stories gives the book added punch; Williams not only thinks about emotions but appeals to our emotions in an engaging manner." (C. Stephen Evans, University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Baylor University)
"Williams breathes new life into the provocative view that human emotions play a central role in legitimate belief in God. Drawing from Kierkegaard and Unamuno, he dares to portray belief in God as something much more personally robust and engaging than a mere solution to an intellectual puzzle. The book will benefit all serious inquirers regarding belief in God." (Paul K. Moser, Loyola University Chicago)
"Clifford Williams has composed an engaging, profoundly personal account of the reasons for belief in the God of Christianity. This is decidedly not a detached or merely academic work but a book that speaks directly to the needs, emotions and best thinking of its readers." (Charles Taliaferro, professor of philosophy, St. Olaf College)
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Clifford Williams teaches philosophy at Trinity College in Deerfield, Illinois. He graduated from Wheaton College in 1964 with a B.A. in philosophy and from Indiana University in 1972 with a Ph.D. in philosophy.
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful
By Jeremy Bouma
Format:Paperback
I have been doing some writing on God and belief in God for a few projects, and so I was very interested when I received a review copy of a new book by IVP called Existential Reasons for Belief in God. The book's thesis is simple, Williams contends that needs, emotions and desires are all valid parts of faith, and quite essential in many cases. This thesis is quite different from the ways I've heard belief in God presented before (you must believe intellectually in a list of facts) yet consistent with most evangelistic approaches that tap into a person's existential angst.
The author opens the book with two questions: "1) Is it legitimate to acquire faith in God solely through satisfaction of needs? 2) Does faith in God consist of emotions?" (12)
Well what do you think?
The author contends that "the ideal way to acquire faith in God is through both need and reason, and that faith should consist of both emotion and assent." (12) While Rationalists emphasize reason and Emotionalists emphasize emotion and need, Williams wants to emphasize both, especially in defending the legitimacy of acquiring faith through need, emotion, and reason.
He does so in the context of arguing eight themes:
1) Emotion and need can be trusted for faith in God as much as reason.
2) The negative assessment of emotions by some Christians is unjustified.
3) The remedy for being led astray by emotions is not to distrust emotions, but to develop the right emotions.
4) Christians should cultivate emotions as much as they do commitment and right action.
5) Having the right emotions is necessary for discovering certain truths.
6) We are not just rational animals, but emotional animals as well.
7) Apologetics has been too evidential. It should be supplemented with existential apologetics, the demonstration that Christian faith is justified because it satisfies certain emotional and spiritual needs.
Emotions are part of what makes life spectacular.
Williams maintains there are two categories of existential need that are valid for drawing and compelling people toward faith in Jesus: Self-directed and other-directed. Self-directed include: cosmic security; security beyond the grave; attainment of heaven; the ideal good life; a larger more expansive life; the need to be loved; meaning; and forgiveness. Other-directed are aimed at the good of others or simply the good, and include: the need to love; feeling of awe; delight in goodness; presence; and justice and fairness. All of these he argues are actually needs, rather than simply desires and are legitimate reasons for belief. ((21-27)
A basic form of the argument is as follows: 1) We need cosmic security, to feel that we will not sink into the nothingness of existence and will be protected by God no matter what. 2) Faith in God satisfies this need. 3) Therefore, we are justified in having faith in God. As you can see, this existential argument focuses on the features of the human condition which, it says, involve needs that can be satisfied by faith in God. Williams maintains this form of argument fits more with Kierkegaard's existentialism, than with that of the French atheists. Like Camus or Sarte, Kierkegaard also examins the despair and meaninglessness of life, yet beliefs they are aimed at actually prodding people toward Christian faith and the Christian answer to that existential condition.
This is in fact what Williams is arguing for: that existential need actually is an argument for the belief in the existence of God. In fact, Jesus appeals to this need in many ways with his well-known invitation in Matt 11: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." As Williams asserts, "Jesus will give rest to those who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens if they come to him. Jesus assumes that people possess the need to be free from weariness and from carrying heavy burdens." (38) I tend to agree. It seems like the whole ministry of Jesus assumed even back then the type of existential angst we deal with today, which to be frank is no different than the angst of past eras, only in different clothes!
Willaims also appeals to the heart itself, saying that it "knows God directly, through perception, not through argument. And this perception is a kind of reason...I suggest a reason based on inclination, or the satisfaction of needs." (55) Williams has already said he wants hold on to both reason and need, so this statement is probably meant more to compensate for the typically Western impulse to deny the emotion and the heart in favor of logical arguments and the brain. And since we are creatures with immense need, Williams maintains this is an initial plausibility, though this initial plausibility must be substantiated with reasons to be credible. (59)
Williams outlines four objections to the credibility of the existentialist argument: it does not guarantee truth; it justifies belief in any type of God; not everyone feels existential need; and existential needs can be satisfied without faith. In each of these chapters the author demonstrates the absolutely vital role existential reasons for belief in God provoke and maintain faith.
First, the idea that the existentialist argument does not guarantee truth relates to the objection that "basing belief in God solely on satisfaction of need is illegitimate, because God might not exist even though believing in God satisfies our needs for cosmic security and life beyond the grave." (61) Therefore, belief in God for existential reasons does not mean God's existence is true. While the author agrees with this objection at face-value, saying it's not enough that our beliefs satisfy our need, need has indeed been a driving force for belief in God, which allows us to seek a way to legitimize that force. That legitimization can come by adding reason to need; it's a need argument with a cognitive assumption and evidence.
The second objection is rooted in the notion that basing belief in God solely on the satisfaction of need is illegitimate because it would justify believing in any kind of God--would it not justify believing in an invisible cosmic tyrant who likes to torture humans with murder, starvation, political oppression and the like? (87) Again, he believes this objection is right if need on its own were the only criteria. He also believes need and reason must go together, and he proposes 5 criteria a need must meet for it to be included in the existentialist argument: needs must be felt by many; needs must endure, not fleeting; needs must be significant, not trivial or superficial; needs must be part of a constellation of connected needs; needs must be felt strongly. (89)
Thirdly, some charge that not everyone experiences or feels one or any of the 13 needs he describes. While the author concedes the argument, he wants to say that it does not mean that the existential argument does not work for those who do indeed feel the needs, because it does. "The existentialist argument for belief in God still works, thought it is limited to those who feel the needs mentioned in the argument." (109) He also argues that we are never aware of all of our needs and states, therefore to say that not everyone has an actual need for one of the thirteen doesn't seem true. While we may not be aware of the need or feel it, it's there. For example, the experience of many has shown that emotional hermits can come to feel the need to be loved, even though they may not feel it at the time (122). Therefore, the same is true for the need for God.
A final objection insists that, though it can be true that God satisfies the thirteen needs listed, it doesn't have to be so. "Although some people find they need faith in the Christian God to satisfy the existential needs, others find that they can satisfy needs with faith in a different God," or no god at all. (131) In this final rebuttal, the author argues for two tests: the restlessness test--which is designed to determine the effectiveness of ways in which we try to satisfy existential needs, seeing whether we are still restless as a result of trying to satisfy them; the obstacles test--which is designed to uncover noncognitive obstacles that prevent a person from feeling that faith in God satisfies existential needs by looking for desires and motives that are likely to conflict with faith in God.
At the end of the book is a money quote: "The belief view has generally ignored needs, except, of course, the need to know what is true. In so doing, it has overintellectualized faith and misperceived what humans really are. Humans are at least as much creatures with existential needs as creatures with minds. Faith must include the satisfaction of those needs." (174) I think Williams is right on! But he also reminds us that "emotion needs to be supplemented with beliefs about God in addition to the construals that emotions themselves contains." (174) Right again.
In the end, this was a very interesting book and presented the beginnings of some solid ideas regarding the presentation of belief in God in a culture that is more beholden to existential needs than perhaps in the past. But I do wonder at what point is there a danger in a presentation of the Christian faith that simply meets the needs of people. Yes all of us need things, particularly the forgiveness of sins and also to be put back together again in this life because of those sins. But could there be a danger of this type of thinking playing into the consumeristic impulses of 21st century Western living? Read more ›
The author opens the book with two questions: "1) Is it legitimate to acquire faith in God solely through satisfaction of needs? 2) Does faith in God consist of emotions?" (12)
Well what do you think?
The author contends that "the ideal way to acquire faith in God is through both need and reason, and that faith should consist of both emotion and assent." (12) While Rationalists emphasize reason and Emotionalists emphasize emotion and need, Williams wants to emphasize both, especially in defending the legitimacy of acquiring faith through need, emotion, and reason.
He does so in the context of arguing eight themes:
1) Emotion and need can be trusted for faith in God as much as reason.
2) The negative assessment of emotions by some Christians is unjustified.
3) The remedy for being led astray by emotions is not to distrust emotions, but to develop the right emotions.
4) Christians should cultivate emotions as much as they do commitment and right action.
5) Having the right emotions is necessary for discovering certain truths.
6) We are not just rational animals, but emotional animals as well.
7) Apologetics has been too evidential. It should be supplemented with existential apologetics, the demonstration that Christian faith is justified because it satisfies certain emotional and spiritual needs.
Emotions are part of what makes life spectacular.
Williams maintains there are two categories of existential need that are valid for drawing and compelling people toward faith in Jesus: Self-directed and other-directed. Self-directed include: cosmic security; security beyond the grave; attainment of heaven; the ideal good life; a larger more expansive life; the need to be loved; meaning; and forgiveness. Other-directed are aimed at the good of others or simply the good, and include: the need to love; feeling of awe; delight in goodness; presence; and justice and fairness. All of these he argues are actually needs, rather than simply desires and are legitimate reasons for belief. ((21-27)
A basic form of the argument is as follows: 1) We need cosmic security, to feel that we will not sink into the nothingness of existence and will be protected by God no matter what. 2) Faith in God satisfies this need. 3) Therefore, we are justified in having faith in God. As you can see, this existential argument focuses on the features of the human condition which, it says, involve needs that can be satisfied by faith in God. Williams maintains this form of argument fits more with Kierkegaard's existentialism, than with that of the French atheists. Like Camus or Sarte, Kierkegaard also examins the despair and meaninglessness of life, yet beliefs they are aimed at actually prodding people toward Christian faith and the Christian answer to that existential condition.
This is in fact what Williams is arguing for: that existential need actually is an argument for the belief in the existence of God. In fact, Jesus appeals to this need in many ways with his well-known invitation in Matt 11: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." As Williams asserts, "Jesus will give rest to those who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens if they come to him. Jesus assumes that people possess the need to be free from weariness and from carrying heavy burdens." (38) I tend to agree. It seems like the whole ministry of Jesus assumed even back then the type of existential angst we deal with today, which to be frank is no different than the angst of past eras, only in different clothes!
Willaims also appeals to the heart itself, saying that it "knows God directly, through perception, not through argument. And this perception is a kind of reason...I suggest a reason based on inclination, or the satisfaction of needs." (55) Williams has already said he wants hold on to both reason and need, so this statement is probably meant more to compensate for the typically Western impulse to deny the emotion and the heart in favor of logical arguments and the brain. And since we are creatures with immense need, Williams maintains this is an initial plausibility, though this initial plausibility must be substantiated with reasons to be credible. (59)
Williams outlines four objections to the credibility of the existentialist argument: it does not guarantee truth; it justifies belief in any type of God; not everyone feels existential need; and existential needs can be satisfied without faith. In each of these chapters the author demonstrates the absolutely vital role existential reasons for belief in God provoke and maintain faith.
First, the idea that the existentialist argument does not guarantee truth relates to the objection that "basing belief in God solely on satisfaction of need is illegitimate, because God might not exist even though believing in God satisfies our needs for cosmic security and life beyond the grave." (61) Therefore, belief in God for existential reasons does not mean God's existence is true. While the author agrees with this objection at face-value, saying it's not enough that our beliefs satisfy our need, need has indeed been a driving force for belief in God, which allows us to seek a way to legitimize that force. That legitimization can come by adding reason to need; it's a need argument with a cognitive assumption and evidence.
The second objection is rooted in the notion that basing belief in God solely on the satisfaction of need is illegitimate because it would justify believing in any kind of God--would it not justify believing in an invisible cosmic tyrant who likes to torture humans with murder, starvation, political oppression and the like? (87) Again, he believes this objection is right if need on its own were the only criteria. He also believes need and reason must go together, and he proposes 5 criteria a need must meet for it to be included in the existentialist argument: needs must be felt by many; needs must endure, not fleeting; needs must be significant, not trivial or superficial; needs must be part of a constellation of connected needs; needs must be felt strongly. (89)
Thirdly, some charge that not everyone experiences or feels one or any of the 13 needs he describes. While the author concedes the argument, he wants to say that it does not mean that the existential argument does not work for those who do indeed feel the needs, because it does. "The existentialist argument for belief in God still works, thought it is limited to those who feel the needs mentioned in the argument." (109) He also argues that we are never aware of all of our needs and states, therefore to say that not everyone has an actual need for one of the thirteen doesn't seem true. While we may not be aware of the need or feel it, it's there. For example, the experience of many has shown that emotional hermits can come to feel the need to be loved, even though they may not feel it at the time (122). Therefore, the same is true for the need for God.
A final objection insists that, though it can be true that God satisfies the thirteen needs listed, it doesn't have to be so. "Although some people find they need faith in the Christian God to satisfy the existential needs, others find that they can satisfy needs with faith in a different God," or no god at all. (131) In this final rebuttal, the author argues for two tests: the restlessness test--which is designed to determine the effectiveness of ways in which we try to satisfy existential needs, seeing whether we are still restless as a result of trying to satisfy them; the obstacles test--which is designed to uncover noncognitive obstacles that prevent a person from feeling that faith in God satisfies existential needs by looking for desires and motives that are likely to conflict with faith in God.
At the end of the book is a money quote: "The belief view has generally ignored needs, except, of course, the need to know what is true. In so doing, it has overintellectualized faith and misperceived what humans really are. Humans are at least as much creatures with existential needs as creatures with minds. Faith must include the satisfaction of those needs." (174) I think Williams is right on! But he also reminds us that "emotion needs to be supplemented with beliefs about God in addition to the construals that emotions themselves contains." (174) Right again.
In the end, this was a very interesting book and presented the beginnings of some solid ideas regarding the presentation of belief in God in a culture that is more beholden to existential needs than perhaps in the past. But I do wonder at what point is there a danger in a presentation of the Christian faith that simply meets the needs of people. Yes all of us need things, particularly the forgiveness of sins and also to be put back together again in this life because of those sins. But could there be a danger of this type of thinking playing into the consumeristic impulses of 21st century Western living? Read more ›
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
Compelling, slightly academic, and logical (with a side of irony)
October 29, 2011
By Jared Totten
Format:Paperback
If you ever wanted to impress people simply by the title of the book you're carrying around, I don't think you could do much better than Existential Reasons for Belief in God by Clifford Williams. However, that same intimidating title makes your job harder if you want to encourage people to read it. (For the record, I do want to do the latter and don't want to do the former.)
I am always game for new takes and approaches to Christian apologetics, and this one certainly fits the bill. While most such books build arguments around sheer fact and reason, Williams argues that there is also good reason (no pun intended) to defend the Christian worldview on a basis of need and emotion.
He points out that some people approach religion and faith in God emphasizing reason (rationalists) while others do so emphasizing emotion and need (emotionalists). Williams argues that rather than an "either/or" approach, we should take a "both/and" approach. Even on it's face this argument makes sense because apologetic arguments based on sheer airtight reason are of no use if the subject does not care about the information or sees no need to believe or accept those arguments. As Williams says,
"My aim is to defend the legitimacy of acquiring faith through need, emotion and reason. Satisfaction of need legitimately draws us to faith, but reason must be involved in this drawing. More simply, the two basic ideas of the book are the drawing power of need and the certifying ability of reason. Need without reason is blind, but reason without need is sterile."
I find it just a little ironic that he makes his argument throughout the book on the basis of rationality, but then again, his reasons would have no power if they did not awaken a desire to respond to such reason. Williams makes his argument in the first couple chapters and then spends four chapters (the majority of the book) addressing four different objections to his premise. The book does threaten at times to turn into an academic paper, but Williams injects personal testimonies of faith throughout the book that effectively breaks that up (and supports his points).
In the end, Williams presents a fresh approach to apologetics that is both helpful and encouraging for those intimidated by a field long dominated by the many intellectual, complicated, and often nuanced arguments for and against the existence of God.
I am always game for new takes and approaches to Christian apologetics, and this one certainly fits the bill. While most such books build arguments around sheer fact and reason, Williams argues that there is also good reason (no pun intended) to defend the Christian worldview on a basis of need and emotion.
He points out that some people approach religion and faith in God emphasizing reason (rationalists) while others do so emphasizing emotion and need (emotionalists). Williams argues that rather than an "either/or" approach, we should take a "both/and" approach. Even on it's face this argument makes sense because apologetic arguments based on sheer airtight reason are of no use if the subject does not care about the information or sees no need to believe or accept those arguments. As Williams says,
"My aim is to defend the legitimacy of acquiring faith through need, emotion and reason. Satisfaction of need legitimately draws us to faith, but reason must be involved in this drawing. More simply, the two basic ideas of the book are the drawing power of need and the certifying ability of reason. Need without reason is blind, but reason without need is sterile."
I find it just a little ironic that he makes his argument throughout the book on the basis of rationality, but then again, his reasons would have no power if they did not awaken a desire to respond to such reason. Williams makes his argument in the first couple chapters and then spends four chapters (the majority of the book) addressing four different objections to his premise. The book does threaten at times to turn into an academic paper, but Williams injects personal testimonies of faith throughout the book that effectively breaks that up (and supports his points).
In the end, Williams presents a fresh approach to apologetics that is both helpful and encouraging for those intimidated by a field long dominated by the many intellectual, complicated, and often nuanced arguments for and against the existence of God.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I have to admit. I am not impartial about anything written or said by Dr. Clifford Williams. Dr. Williams my professor in my Honors Introduction to Philosophy class my freshman year at Trinity International University. He was, infact, the teacher of the first class I ever took in college. His class was wonderful. It led a friend of mine to decide he was going to major in philosophy. And it taught us all how important it was to bring together the life of the mind and the life of faith.
It is no wonder that the first book of his that I have ever gotten to read is Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith. In this fine book Williams attempts to deconstruct the dualism between Emotions and Reason, Faith and the Intellect. He specifically does this in relation to decisions of faith, arguing that there is nohting irrational or immoral about having faith decisions generated by both our intellectual and emotional lives. In fact, as responsible humans, the realities of our emotional selves and our reason-driven selves should both be factored in to making wise, true, and ethical decisions. This is especially true regarding decisions about ultimate reality.
Existential Reasons for Belief in God is very deliberate and methodical in how it makes its case. It begins by setting the scene of arguments for faith in the world of philosophy, defining terms, and familiarizing his readers with the issues that need to be addressed. Then, it makes a well-reasoned argument in favor of "existential" arguments for faith in God. Next, Dr. Williams spends several chapters addressing objections to his thesis.
In addressing objections, Dr. Williams, true to his character, does not set up straw men to knock down. Instead, he addresses intelligent and thoughtful concerns with a lot of grace and equal measure of strong reason.
Next, Existential Reasons for Belief in God takes a few more chapters to further commend the importance of both existential and intellectual paths to a life of faith.
The result is a wonderful resource, and a treasured book to be kept on my shelf for many years.
All in all, I enjoyed this book. I would not commend it to everyone, as it is pretty heavy reading for the average person. But, to those who love the world of ideas, and love doing a lot of in-depth reading, I would recommend this book heartily. Happy Reading.
It is no wonder that the first book of his that I have ever gotten to read is Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith. In this fine book Williams attempts to deconstruct the dualism between Emotions and Reason, Faith and the Intellect. He specifically does this in relation to decisions of faith, arguing that there is nohting irrational or immoral about having faith decisions generated by both our intellectual and emotional lives. In fact, as responsible humans, the realities of our emotional selves and our reason-driven selves should both be factored in to making wise, true, and ethical decisions. This is especially true regarding decisions about ultimate reality.
Existential Reasons for Belief in God is very deliberate and methodical in how it makes its case. It begins by setting the scene of arguments for faith in the world of philosophy, defining terms, and familiarizing his readers with the issues that need to be addressed. Then, it makes a well-reasoned argument in favor of "existential" arguments for faith in God. Next, Dr. Williams spends several chapters addressing objections to his thesis.
In addressing objections, Dr. Williams, true to his character, does not set up straw men to knock down. Instead, he addresses intelligent and thoughtful concerns with a lot of grace and equal measure of strong reason.
Next, Existential Reasons for Belief in God takes a few more chapters to further commend the importance of both existential and intellectual paths to a life of faith.
The result is a wonderful resource, and a treasured book to be kept on my shelf for many years.
All in all, I enjoyed this book. I would not commend it to everyone, as it is pretty heavy reading for the average person. But, to those who love the world of ideas, and love doing a lot of in-depth reading, I would recommend this book heartily. Happy Reading.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Book that's Needed (pun intended!)
The title of the book presents no illusion or mystery to it's inside contents. A creative cover image, not a very creative title. Read more
Published 9 months ago by R. Hardman
4.0 out of 5 stars
an existential case for belief in God & answers logical questions
Existential Reasons for Belief in God provides a compelling case for the role of needs, desires and emotions in belief. Read more
Published 15 months ago by Dr. Greg Smith (aka sowhatfaith)
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
|
|
