Book review: The Reason for God (part 1)
The Reason for God: Belief an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller. Someone asked me to review this book once I finish it. Book reviews are not something I’m very familiar with; frankly, I don’t like reading much. I read so slowly that I find finishing a book to be too little reward for too much effort. That is, of course, unless the book is good enough to merit the effort - and this book is! The truth is that I have not yet finished reading this work, but it certainly deserves to be read in its completion. Reason for God is divided into two parts, with an introduction before part one and an “Intermission” chapter wrapping it up and leading into part two. Today, you’re going to hear about the former; when I’ve completed reading, I’ll follow up with the latter.
Starting where I’ve paused in my reading, I’ll let the author himself describe the two sections to you.
"Intermission means literally to be between journeys or missions. That is where we are now. Underlying all doubts about Christianity are alternate beliefs, unprovable assumptions about the nature of things. So far I’ve examined the beliefs beneath the seven biggest objections or doubts people in our culture have about the Christian faith. I respect much of the reasoning behind them, but in the end I don’t believe any of them make the truth of Christianity impossible or even improbable. We have another journey to take, however. It is one thing to argue that there are no sufficient reasons for disbelieving Christianity. It is another to argue that there are sufficient reasons for believing it. That is what I will try to do in the last part of this volume." (p.115)
Now, let’s jump back to the beginning. Keller grabbed my attention while still in the introduction, addressing issues such as unexamined faith and lack of respectful dialogue.
"I commend two processes to my readers. I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined “blind faith” on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them. I also urge believers to wrestle with their personal and culture’s objections to the faith. A the end of each process, even if you remain the skeptic or believer you have been, you will hold your own position with both greater clarity and greater humility. Then there will be an understanding, sympathy, and respect for the other side that did not exist before. Believers and non-believers will rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing one another." (xviii)
This refreshing point of view could potentially bring down the animosity between theist and atheists, opening long-closed doors for the gospel to penetrate more deeply and widely into the worlds academic and cultural skepticism.
In Part 1: The Leap of Doubt, Keller posits that skepticism of one belief is adherence to an alternate belief. He contrasts such “beliefs” from provable facts.
The author first tackles doubt about the exclusivity of Christ, illustrating that such doubt is really belief in the unprovable assertion that not only one religion could be true. Along the way, he also addresses the notion that religion degrades peace.
Chapter two tackles the difficult question of evil and suffering. He actually turns the problem back to the skeptics, pointing out that “modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair play and justice. People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak--these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust? The nonbeliever in God doesn’t have a good basis for being outraged at injustice, which, as Lewis points out, was the reason for objecting to God in the first place.” (26)
Moving on, in chapter three Keller uses his personal experiences as the founder and pastor of a thriving Presbyterian Church in Manhattan to refute the widespread comparison of Christianity to a straightjacket.
A sensitive subject is thoughtfully examined next - the injustices committed by the Church. I especially enjoyed his thoughts on fanaticism. “Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and hard. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding--as Christ was.” (57)
Eternal damnation is up next, titled by the question, “How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?” You need to read this chapter for yourself and see how Keller leans on C.S. Lewis (as he often does throughout the book) to explain why “hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity.” (78)
This book is not a science book, looking to pit one finding or scientist against another of the opposing view. If that’s what you are looking for, look to others such as McDowell and Strobel. Keller’s approach is the one I’ve preferred for years; he demonstrates that you can believe in God and think scientifically. A taste of his approach:
"The New Testament is filled with accounts of miracles that Jesus performed during the course of his ministry. Scientific mistrust of the Bible began with the Enlightenment belief that miracles cannot be reconciled to a modern, rational view of te world. Armed with this presupposition, scholars turned to the Bible and said, “the Biblical accounts can’t be reliable because they contain descriptions f miracles.” But, embedded in such a statement is a leap of faith.
"It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist.” (85)
The final chapter of part one looks into the historical reliability of the Bible. After looking again to Lewis and others for help in conveying the truth, he ends with this surprising but insightful observation: “ Now, what happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? . . . You’ll have . . . A God, essentially, of your own making . . . Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real Gad and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it.” (114)
In Keller’s title, there are two operative words: “reason” and “God”. The work could have been titled Reasoning about God or God and Reason, but the chosen title is the best one. In part one, Keller reasons a case against skeptical alternative beliefs. Now, I’m eager to pick up in part two, where Keller will reason the case for belief in God, thus helping skeptics to see The Reason for God.
Recent Comments