Yes, I recommend Gale's On the Nature and Existence of God, Mackie's Miracle of Theism, Schellenberg's Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason, and Rowe's The Cosmological Argument. Of course, there are others but I think those are worthy of attention. 

SR wrote:

My red pill moment happened when I was in a seminar on the foundations of cognitive science. At the time I was somewhat of an agnostic as far physical reductionism is concerned. In the seminar, what was called the "homunculus problem" came up -- what I think now would be called the hard problem of consciousness. On the way home from the seminar, I was thinking that what makes the hard problem hard was the question of how micro-events (nerve firings or what have you) become awareness of big events (what I later learned was the unifying objection to reductionism). It then struck me that the only way that micro-events, each of which is separated by space and time from all other micro-events, could be unified as a whole, was if ordinary consciousness transcended space and time. And that was only possible if eternity (that is, the non-spatiotemporal) was real. This I then connected with two other considerations: that if eternity is real, then a lot of quantum weirdness makes more sense (e.g., how there can be superpositions of states, the uncertainty principle, and above all, non-locality), and that mystics have been saying for millennia that space and time are not fundamental. Thus I realized that the proper arena of questions of philosophy of mind was religious philosophy.

Did this immediately open you up to an essentialist/hylemorphic view of reality in general?

SR wrote:

RomanJoe wrote:

SR wrote:

My red pill moment happened when I was in a seminar on the foundations of cognitive science. At the time I was somewhat of an agnostic as far physical reductionism is concerned. In the seminar, what was called the "homunculus problem" came up -- what I think now would be called the hard problem of consciousness. On the way home from the seminar, I was thinking that what makes the hard problem hard was the question of how micro-events (nerve firings or what have you) become awareness of big events (what I later learned was the unifying objection to reductionism). It then struck me that the only way that micro-events, each of which is separated by space and time from all other micro-events, could be unified as a whole, was if ordinary consciousness transcended space and time. And that was only possible if eternity (that is, the non-spatiotemporal) was real. This I then connected with two other considerations: that if eternity is real, then a lot of quantum weirdness makes more sense (e.g., how there can be superpositions of states, the uncertainty principle, and above all, non-locality), and that mystics have been saying for millennia that space and time are not fundamental. Thus I realized that the proper arena of questions of philosophy of mind was religious philosophy.

Did this immediately open you up to an essentialist/hylemorphic view of reality in general?

No, it led me to taking religion in general seriously, but of a mystical sort, and that more Eastern than Western. The books I credit with introducing me to an interest in Western religion are Robert Magliola's Derrida on the Mend, and Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances. However, by any orthodox standard, I remain not a Christian. As for essentialism/hylomorphism, I only became acquainted with it (and the idea of classical theism) much later, from reading Feser. But I do not accept hylomorphism in that I hold that the explanatory function of prime matter is better achieved by replacing it with God's sustaining power. This makes me an idealist (that there is nothing outside of consciousness), not a hylomorphic dualist.

 

But you do affirm the existence of forms, no? I mean with regards to reality in general, not just the human being.