tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post3299298944642922793..comments2024-03-06T04:31:53.093+11:00Comments on Just in CASE: The Reason for GodTrevor Cairneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-50441072217930895862009-03-26T09:42:00.000+11:002009-03-26T09:42:00.000+11:00Since reading the review of this book here last ye...Since reading the review of this book here last year, I have been keen to read it myself.<BR/><BR/> I should admit that it’s probably hard for me to be entirely objective about a lot of The Reason for God, because so much of Tim Keller’s thinking corresponds quite closely to my own. Be that as it may, I’ll offer a few suggestions.<BR/><BR/>It might not be fair or accurate to suggest that Keller is a C.S. Lewis for the early 21st century. Christian apologetics must, however, engage with their era, and if Lewis were alive today his writings would no doubt look quite different in certain respects. He was a man of his times, and his methodology was immensely successful in engaging with the concerns of those times. In this – engaging with contemporary thought – I believe Keller succeeds brilliantly. I agree substantially with his view that, while God has not given us means of conclusively proving his existence, he has provided us with many clues, or pointers. It is fascinating, for instance, to see the way in which discoveries in astrophysics in recent decades have made the idea of a creator God more likely than previously seemed possible in some circles (the “fine-tuning” argument). Keller uses reason to show that belief in God is at the very least a possibility, while demonstrating that the same exercise of reason is ultimately a cul-de-sac: an omnipotent God will only reveal himself to a degree and in a manner that suits his purposes.<BR/><BR/>One of Keller’s aims seems to have been to demonstrate that the Christian religion provides the best key to unlocking the perennial questions of existence – what King Lear calls “the mystery of things”. In this I believe he has made an important contribution to our understanding of what it means to be truly human.<BR/><BR/>In a way, the facts of Keller’s ministry speak for themselves: in an age when it appears that for many the message of the gospel has lost most or all of the relevance it was once perceived to enjoy, Keller, relying on God’s grace and strength, has built a thriving, growing church in a place where many would have expected nothing but stony ground. This probably illustrates nothing so much as that the success of our endeavours to spread the good news of Jesus will depend, humanly speaking, on our determination to preach the gospel undiluted, with a deep belief in the infallibility of God’s word – albeit that the way in which that word can be read, or understood (as Keller I think demonstrates at points in his book) can vary among believers without necessarily undermining its truth or power. <BR/><BR/>The Reason for God is not without its faults. Personally I found some of the treatment of major objections to Christian belief in the earlier chapters quite facile. Such judgements are of course highly subjective. Possible negatives aside, there is much in The Reason for God that will provide encouragement for Christians of all persuasions – as well as being a useful tool in engaging effectively, yet respectfully, with the relativism so rife in our times.<BR/><BR/>Greg TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-10429850091298371872008-08-10T18:27:00.000+10:002008-08-10T18:27:00.000+10:00Hi Hinch, Glad to hear your views on this. I disc...Hi Hinch, Glad to hear your views on this. I discovered your review just after I’d posted my own review - enjoyed reading it (even though there was much with which I disagreed). I can see the threads of your argument again in your response to my post. There is only time and space to comment on a couple of things here (might come back to this later). First, while your comments (and your own review) are interesting, I think (with all due respect) that you miss Keller’s point about truth. Since he’s arguing the Christian position in light of the attacks by sceptics and atheists, it isn’t surprising that he’d discuss relativism. But the context of his argument is that the Christian truth claim is dismissed as simply another view of the world. To quote him: “Skeptics believe that any exclusive claims to a superior knowledge of spiritual reality cannot be true. But this objection is itself a religious belief. It assumes God is unknowable, or that God is loving but not wrathful, or that God is an impersonal force rather than a person who speaks in Scripture. All these are unprovable faith assumptions. In addition, their proponents believe they have a superior way to view things. They believe that the world would be a better place if everyone dropped the traditional religions’ views of God and truth and adopted theirs. Therefore, their view is also an ‘exclusive’ claim about the nature of spiritual reality..” Keller simply throws the argument back at those who use it against Christianity. I suspect that you too hold to at least one truth claim – Christianity is wrong. <BR/><BR/>I also disagree with your view that his position is arrogant. Re-read his introduction where he argues for “respectful dialogue”. To take an alternative view is not arrogance. I don’t see your dismissal of basic Christian truths as arrogant; neither should you see his as arrogant. <BR/><BR/>Second, your response to his views on morality are interesting, but I suggest that your alternatives to the notion of an external reference point have significant flaws that many philosophers of all faiths and none have already critiqued. You suggest that an agreed social framework, and a biological aversion to pain and suffering (physical and emotional) is all that we need, not a universal moral framework. This sounds like (among other things) classic Libertarianism to me – we need as much freedom as possible to determine our own goals. You suggest that somehow, if left alone, humanity will work out what is good and right by social consensus and due to an evolved avoidance of pain and suffering. That in effect, is what the Bible teaches, mankind chooses to rule the world its own way with no regard for him – hence his judgement. Keller is not the only person to critique the Kantian notion that an enlightened person is one who trusts his or her thinking, rather than authority or tradition.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Keller does not suggest that Christians are better people than non-Christians, in fact he says quite plainly, that “….Christians should expect to find nonbelievers who are nicer, kinder, wiser, and better than they are. Why? Christian believers are not accepted by God because of their moral performance, wisdom, or virtue, but because of Christ’s work on their behalf…” (p.19). <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment. TrevorTrevor Cairneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-21014761484282469102008-08-10T10:38:00.000+10:002008-08-10T10:38:00.000+10:00I read this book a couple of months ago. It was a...I read this book a couple of months ago. It was an enjoyable read; however, i do have some objections.<BR/><BR/>In the first half of the book, Keller typically dismisses common objections to christianity by forcing the dialog along one of two paths: 1. the antagonist is either charged with submitting a relativistic claim, or 2. they are obligated to admit special access to universal truth. In the event they admit relativism, any argument against christianity can be dismissed, for it is rendered as nothing more than an alternate personal perspective. In the event they admit an appeal to universal truth, the argument is deemed to be nothing more than an alternate and indefensible faith claim.<BR/><BR/>However, not surprisingly, the positive arguments for christianity presented in the book are not subjected to the same criticisms of relativism and arrogance. Keller allows himself this convenience by suggesting that in a sense, christianity is a universal truth that doesn’t really need to be justified, for everybody already knows it to be true; his job is simply to reorient the attention of non-believers to this rather obvious fact.<BR/><BR/>In regard to other matters, i was unimpressed by Keller's discussion of morality. I consider it a significant error to suggest that morality only makes sense when humanity has an external reference point against which to judge right and wrong. Two other criteria suffice: an agreed social framework, and a biological aversion to pain and suffering (physical and emotional). There is no need to argue for a position of universal morality; all that is required is a sensitivity to the discomfort of others (a sensitivity which itself can be explained through evolutionary theory).<BR/><BR/>Keller's explanation of suffering in the chapter “How could a good God allow suffering in the world?" is perhaps the most unconvincing i've read in any apologetic work. His suggestion that <STRONG>all</STRONG> non-christians are effectively on a downward spiral of addiction and self-loathing is patently unjustified. And finally, i consider his description of hell to be completely non-biblical.<BR/><BR/>An interesting read if for no other reason than it raises more questions than it resolves.Hinchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06918222846101532722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-24240430326235300152008-08-06T21:32:00.000+10:002008-08-06T21:32:00.000+10:00Hi Greg, thanks for your comment. It isn't on sal...Hi Greg, thanks for your comment. It isn't on sale in Australia yet but it's easy to get from online book stores like Amazon. I've edited the post to add a link.Trevor Cairneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10743409298855125040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6160916.post-27544589040959288672008-08-06T10:01:00.000+10:002008-08-06T10:01:00.000+10:00Trevor,This looks outstanding. As soon as I can fi...Trevor,<BR/><BR/>This looks outstanding. As soon as I can find out where I can get hold of a copy, I will order one!<BR/><BR/>Greg TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com