|
Key insights from
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of
Skepticism
By
Timothy Keller
|
|
|
What you'll learn
Why would God allow suffering? If he is loving, how could he
send people to hell? Why does Christianity have to be so exclusive? In The
Reason for God, Keller looks at questions and objections he has
frequently encountered over the years as a pastor in the heart of New York
City. After responding to objections, he makes a case for the Christian
faith and the reasons for God.
Read on for key insights from The Reason for God.
|
|
1. Without common
ground, meaningful dialogue between Christians and skeptics will not be
possible.
We live in a fascinating, singular time in history, where
both secular skepticism and traditional religious faith are both on the
rise in our society. Until recently, sociologists predicted that
rationality, science, and technology would ultimately supplant religious
belief. Far from withering away, religious belief is flourishing and
spreading all over the world and swiftly coming to the forefront of
academic discussion. This unexpected dual-ascendancy of faith and doubt has
led to a deeply divided culture because neither the skeptics nor the
religious can readily identify common ground, a necessary component of
meaningful discourse. Each side begins its critique from sets of
assumptions that the other side rejects. This book is, in part, an attempt
to establish a parcel of common ground between these groups. By fostering a
deeper mutual understanding of opposing viewpoints, skeptics and believers
can civilly and honestly discuss and debate rather than simply denouncing
the other side.
|
|
2. All value
systems have fundamental beliefs, not just those deemed “fundamentalist.”
Many object to the Christian message on the grounds that it
is exclusive. The idea is that religions—particularly exclusive
ones—inflame tensions and hinder world peace. From this viewpoint, the way
to prevent discrimination, marginalization, and oppression, is to reject
exclusive ideologies and embrace inclusive ones.
There are a few commonly proposed prescriptions for dealing
with religious divisiveness: politically ban religion, culturally condemn
it, or confine it to the private sphere. But these efforts to prevent the
divisiveness of religion tend to be impractical and fail to achieve a
unified, peaceable society. Sometimes such efforts can lead to new
varieties of exclusivity.
During the twentieth century, Nazi and Soviet regimes sought
God-like sovereignty and violently repressed any religious loyalty that
might subvert their own. The bans brought tremendous division. When a
culture rejects a religion outright on grounds that the belief system is
exclusive, that culture perpetuates the very exclusion it sought to
eradicate in the first place. Cultural condemnation eventually fails
because the double standard is unsustainable. Finally, the idea of
constraining religious ideas to the private sphere is naive, as some sort
of guiding cultural narrative and moral code—even if implicit—will inevitably
emerge in the public realm, rendering the confinement of moral-spiritual
ideas to the private sphere impossible.
A related objection concerns the question of fundamentalism.
The common cultural assumption that fundamentalism is inherently dangerous
fails to ask a subtler question of whether a religion’s “fundamental”
beliefs make a difference. We must ask which fundamental set of beliefs
will lead its followers to be humble, loving, and tolerant toward others.
While religion can pose major challenges to peace, Christianity, in its
truest and fundamental form, has brought forth these virtues in its
devotees. In a seemingly tolerant, pluralistic Greco-Roman world, it was
the early Christians who looked out for the marginalized and cared for
believer and non-believer alike during the plagues; in short, they modeled
the sacrificial love at the heart of the Christian message, of Christ dying
on the cross for humanity.
While the church has not always exemplified these core
beliefs, when it has stuck to its fundamentals, it has been a force for
tremendous good and modeled tolerance and peacemaking.
|
|
3. The incarnation
gives us comfort in the face of suffering, and the resurrection brings hope
that the suffering is not meaningless or eternal.
Another objection that people raise is the difficulty of
reconciling a loving, all-powerful God and a world full of seemingly
pointless suffering and evil. The hidden assumption here is that God and
evil cannot coexist, and while neither theists nor most atheists consider
this argument a defeater for God, the existence of evil remains a problem
with which the believer and non-believer alike must grapple. Simply
dismissing God does not make the problem of evil more manageable.
For many, the philosophical debates fail to address and
mollify the emotional objections to a good God allowing evil and suffering.
Christianity does not try to provide an answer to the why behind
each and every instance of suffering, but it does provide tremendous
resources for people, giving them courage and perseverance to face that
suffering.
In Christ, God took on flesh and bone and lived among a
hurting humankind. In doing so, he showed a willingness to identify with
human frailty and even die a humiliating, painful death, enduring not just
immense physical pain, but the spiritual pain of utter separation from the
Father as he absorbed hell itself (that is, separation from God) for
humanity’s sake.
It is a comfort to know that God is not distant or
indifferent, but present with us and able to identify with us in our
suffering; however, this does not alleviate the frustration or fear that
our suffering might be in vain, without any kind of purpose. The Resurrection
gives hope that we have not just the consolation of Christ’s presence, but
restoration in Christ; that death and pain do not have the final word, but
that all creation—including our individual experiences—will be made right
and will be all the more beautiful for being made whole.
|
|
|
|
4. Despite what
many think, Christianity is actually the most diverse religion on earth.
While many think of Christianity as the death knell to
individuality, Christianity is actually the most adaptive and diverse
religion on earth. The Bible is an Asian book, and Christianity’s early
influences were Hebraic and Hellenistic. Unlike other religions, whose
adherents still reside mainly in the land where the religion originated,
Christianity has spread across the globe. And far from destroying local
cultures, Christianity has taken on the distinctive cultural flavors of the
regions where it has been embraced. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America,
where the vast majority of Christians live, the expressions of faith are
vastly different.
|
|
5. Love involves
giving up some freedom, but, paradoxically, it brings a deeper freedom.
A life without constraints is impossible, in life generally
and in the moral-spiritual realm in particular. A more realistic question
would be, “What are the restrictions on freedom that are worth tolerating?”
A violinist, for example, submits to an intense practice regimen for the
sake of freely playing her instrument with ease and proficiency. She gives
up “free time” and alternative activities for the sake of a better
freedom.
Love is the best constraint we can place on ourselves. By
committing yourself to another, you limit yourself, in a sense, but,
paradoxically, you can become freer through the independence you relinquish
for the sake of the relationship.
When in love, you do all you can to please your lover and
anticipate wishes. You want to do what the other person asks. This
kind of selflessness isn’t stifling if it brings you pleasure, too. When we
remember that Christ changed for us, taking on flesh and bone, laying down
his freedom and ultimately his life for our sake, the act of giving up
freedom in order to follow his wishes begins to make sense.
|
|
6. Hell is the
realm of eternal self-absorption.
The notion of a God who judges people and sends them to hell
is distasteful for many in Western cultures. Love seems irreconcilable with
judgment so harsh. This objection is typically made on emotional grounds
rather than philosophical grounds, but it is carries hidden assumptions
that are worth unpacking.
In the past, the assumption about reality was, “We conform
to reality as much as we can.” Modern intuitions have reversed this: “As
much as we can, we make reality conform to us.” The modern optimism that we
can change the physical order has bled into our understanding of the
metaphysical order. Hell is one of those notions that our culture has
sought to do away with.
But what is hell? The popular image is a fiery abyss of
eternal pain and suffering where God sends those who fail to make good life
choices. This, however, is a grossly inaccurate picture. Simply put, hell
is one’s refusal to identify oneself with God—it is to pursue an identity
founded on self rather than God. Such a person is consumed by his own
selfishness and freely chooses it over God ad infinitum. As C.S.
Lewis puts it, “There are two kinds of people—those who say, ‘Thy will be
done’ to God and those to whom God in the end says, ‘Thy will be done.’”
|
|
7. Faith and
science are not mutually exclusive.
Another common reason for rejecting Christianity is the
belief that science has disproven it. Evolutionary biologist Richard
Dawkins, for example, submitted in his book The God Delusion that
any truly intelligent, scientifically-minded individual cannot also be
religious. Are we truly forced to choose between science and religious
faith?
The topic of miracles is a major point of disconnect for
many. Science deals with observable phenomena in the physical world. A
miracle cannot be tested according to empirical metrics, and so the
possibility of miracles is dismissed out of hand. The same logic is used to
disprove God’s existence. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga likens this dismissal
to the drunk who insists on looking for his car keys under the streetlight
because he can see things better there. It is fallacious to assume that
because God is not clearly observable under the street lamp of science that
he does not exist at all.
Evolution is another hang-up for many. But it is possible
for a Christian to believe in evolution without committing to philosophical
naturalism, that is, the position that the physical universe is all that
exists, and, therefore, the only valid explanations for phenomena are
materialistic. Dawkins sees conflict as the only possible dynamic between
faith and science, but dialogue, integration, and independence are other
options. God could have, for example, used natural evolutionary processes
to bring humanity into existence. This is one of numerous models for how
science and faith can interact.
But doesn’t evolution disprove the Genesis account? We must
be sure that we read the Bible not literally, but literarily. In other
words, we must bear in mind the genre of the book and what the author was
likely trying to communicate to his original audience. Genesis 1 is an
artistic, poetic expression of the creation event. To read it as a science
textbook would be a mistake.
|
|
8. Taken together,
the clues that point to God’s existence are compelling.
While there do not exist any formal philosophical proofs for
God’s existence, there are compelling arguments that God’s existence is
plausible, which we can conceive of as clues. Each clue on its own is not a
philosophical slam-dunk, but as more of these clues accumulate, they gain a
critical mass worth pausing over. The plausibility of God’s existence could
seem less outlandish than the open-minded skeptic might have initially
anticipated. Here are a handful of clues that merit consideration.
1) The Big Bang Theory
Scientists now believe that the universe began to exist a
finite time ago. This raises the question of how something could come from
nothing. An Unmoved Mover, or Creator, fits nicely with this recent
discovery.
2) The Fine-Tuning of
the Universe
There are a multitude of conditions that need to be “just
right” in order for life on earth to be possible and sustainable. Were one
of these factors off—even slightly—then life would not exist. The chances
of these conditions converging are statistically infinitesimal, making the
delicate balance astounding.
3) Nature’s Regularity
David Hume famously maintained that there is no certainty
that the sun will rise tomorrow. It’s enough to keep a philosopher up at
night! Science helps us to accurately predict natural phenomena, but
scientists and philosophers still take it on faith that the physical order
will continue to operate as it has in the past. The belief in a personal,
all-powerful God who sustains the created order makes this a less
befuddling prospect.
4) The Longing for
Meaning, Love, and Beauty
What do we make of the longing that we have for these
things? It is hard to account for these longings on purely materialistic
grounds. Reducing love and beauty to chemicals being released and neurons
firing seem unsatisfactory. There is a hunger that we have that the
choicest food, music, and sex fail to fully satisfy. With a longing so
strong that this world fails to satisfy time and time again, perhaps we
should be open to the possibility that there is more to reality than the
physical realm.
One can develop a rational evasion for each of these clues,
but taken together, they have substantial explanatory power. God’s
existence makes sense of the natural order, its highly improbable
viability, our longing for beauty, meaning, and love, and our capacity for
rationality. Naturalist explanations, on the other hand, do not.
|
|
9. Cultural norms
are shaky foundations for morality.
Here in New York, the common assumption is that morality is
an individual preference and you should not impose your personal sense of
morality on others. This admission opens up a philosophical can of worms
because, while they want to maintain the individual as the measure of all
things—including morality—most New Yorkers would also concede that others
commit acts that are wrong. Who wants to say that the Nazi extermination of
Jews should not have been stopped because they were simply operating
according to their personal, cultural sense of morality? Barring Hitler, no
one.
What this means is that most people really do believe that
there is a moral standard that transcends individual preferences. This belief
seems inescapable, and begs the question of why this pervasive belief
exists.
The language of human rights is perhaps the closest we have
come to a universal understanding of morality. But what legitimizes human
rights? Is it the majority opinion? Is it natural law? If human rights are
simply a construction by the majority or based on intuitions, they have no
true basis because they are rooted in an opinion that is liable to change
and reversal. Nietzsche himself understood that the absence of God meant no
foundation for goodness or human rights.
God makes much better sense of our deep-seated conviction
that napalming babies and selling women and children into slavery are, in
fact, atrocious, independent of people’s actions or beliefs to the
contrary. If the Cosmic Bench is empty and there’s no one who cares about
what we do, then whether we are kind or cruel does not really matter.
|
|
10. Grace is what
distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.
An important distinction should be made between religion and
the gospel. “Religion” refers to salvation through personal effort. The
gospel refers to salvation not by personal morality but by grace.
Sin typically leads to two forms of pride and
self-absorption: irreligious and religious; breaking the rules or trying to
keep the rules. Neither path leads to God, and it is actually those who try
to keep the rules who are in greater danger. Pharisees were the religious
leaders of Jesus’ day who took great pride in their religious rites. This
led to a smug self-righteousness and distaste for the rule breakers.
Ultimately, self-righteousness is a focus on self and not on God. It is
this unattractive disposition that Jesus was constantly denouncing and
which, in our day, has left many people hurt and confused about the true
heart of Christianity.
Grace is what makes the gospel distinct from all other
religions. Salvation is not based on moral effort, but on what Christ has
already done on the cross. With religion, the thought process is, “I obey
in hopes of gaining acceptance.” The gospel reverses this: “I am accepted
by Christ, therefore I obey.”
This also radically changes the motivation from fear (“I
need to do x, y, and z to be accepted”) to gratitude for the gift of
salvation. Your identity is not dependent on what you have done, but
on the fact that, in Christ, you are loved by God, something that can
never be taken away.
|
|
11. Naturalistic
explanations for the resurrection do not make sense of Christianity’s
spread or followers’ devotion.
The truth of the Christian faith hinges on the reality of
the resurrection. It is important to bear in mind that the burden of proof
does not fall only on the believer, as is often assumed, but also on the
skeptic to construct an alternative interpretation of historical events.
A common interpretation of events is that a primitive,
gullible, first-century crowd was far more open to superstitious events
like miracles, and so intense was the grief they experienced over Jesus’
death that it led to visions and dreams of Jesus. He was alive in their
hearts, and his presence was guiding them. As the spirituality developed
over time, more entrenched became the belief that it was not just a vision,
but a physical, bodily resurrected Jesus. The gospel’s messages were
created to spread this belief.
There are several problems with this account. It assumes
that the two most crucial parts of the written accounts—the empty tomb and
eyewitnesses—were made up. What, then, would make sense of Paul’s letters
to the early churches, written less than two decades after the crucifixion,
which speak of the resurrection as a concrete, historical event that the
reader can investigate for him- or herself by speaking with any of the
countless witnesses in Jerusalem who reported that Christ had appeared to
them? This claim would have been easy enough to expose as a falsehood.
Furthermore, the accounts were written in a historical
style, with an eye for detail and accuracy, including the embarrassing
details. That the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection were women was
something that would have detracted from—or even invalidated—the account’s
validity in first-century Mediterranean eyes. So why include details like
that in the account? Also, the fact that there is not just one stray
account, but several, adds a corroborative power that historians would love
to have for other historical events. Most historical events that we take
for granted as true are founded on far less evidence than the evidence
surrounding the resurrection.
If the earliest believers were trying to persuade and gain a
following, they managed to ignore significant spiritual, cultural, and
literary conventions that would have aided them in making their message
seem credible.
|
|
Endnotes
These insights are
just an introduction. If you're ready to dive deeper, pick up a copy of The
Reason for God here. And since we get a commission on
every sale, your purchase will help keep this newsletter free.
Don't be like the
MLB. While they're
playing woke games instead of baseball, our friends at The Patriot Post
speak the message of Liberty to all people. Conservative perspective on the
most important issues is what's needed to fight the woke mob. Click here to join the Patriot's Post
mission and download their free Patriot's Primer.
*
This is sponsored content
|
|
|
This newsletter is powered by Thinkr, a smart reading app for the
busy-but-curious. For full access to hundreds of titles — including audio —
go premium and download the app today.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment