The Reason for God

Pages

Over the last 4 years we have had some great discussions about faith and reason. I have thoroughly enjoyed our dialogue and have been thinking recently about the idea of reading through a book with whoever was interested and discussing it in this forum. As I looked for something that might pique the interest of more than just me, I started reading the book, The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. Here is the full introduction chapter of this book in pdf form. Check it out and let me know what you think.

IMAGE(http://books.google.com/books?id=-eUbFMEY49QC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1)

Here are a few excerpts from the introduction:

Tim Keller wrote:

I find your lack of faith—disturbing.
—Darth Vader

There is a great gulf today between what is popularly known as
liberalism and conservatism. Each side demands that you not
only disagree with but disdain the other as (at best) crazy or (at
worst) evil. This is particularly true when religion is the point at
issue. Progressives cry out that fundamentalism is growing rapidly
and non-belief is stigmatized. They point out that politics has
turned toward the right, supported by mega- churches and mobilized
orthodox believers. Conservatives endlessly denounce what
they see as an increasingly skeptical and relativistic society. Major
universities, media companies, and elite institutions are heavily
secular, they say, and they control the culture.

Which is it? Is skepticism or faith on the ascendancy in the
world today? The answer is Yes. The enemies are both right. Skepticism,
fear, and anger toward traditional religion are growing in
power and influence. But at the same time, robust, orthodox
belief in the traditional faiths is growing as well.

Tim Keller wrote:

Because doubt and belief are each on the rise, our political
and public discourse on matters of faith and morality has become
deadlocked and deeply divided. The culture wars are taking a
toll. Emotions and rhetoric are intense, even hysterical. Those
who believe in God and Christianity are out to “impose their
beliefs on the rest of us” and “turn back the clock” to a less enlightened
time. Those who don’t believe are “enemies of truth”
and “purveyors of relativism and permissiveness.” We don’t reason
with the other side; we only denounce.

Tim Keller wrote:

I want to make a proposal that I have seen bear much fruit in the lives of young New Yorkers over the years. I recommend that each side look at doubt in a radically new way.

Let’s begin with believers. A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic. A person’s faith can collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.

Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts—not only their own but their friends’ and neighbors’. It is no longer sufficient to hold beliefs just because you inherited them. Only if you struggle long and hard with objections to your faith will you be able to provide grounds for your beliefs to skeptics, including yourself, that are plausible rather than ridiculous or offensive. And, just as important for our current situation, such a process will lead you, even after you come to a position of strong faith, to respect and understand those who doubt.

But even as believers should learn to look for reasons behind their faith, skeptics must learn to look for a type of faith hidden within their reasoning. All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs.9 You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B. For example, if you doubt Christianity because “There can’t be just one true religion,” you must recognize that this statement is itself an act of faith. No one can prove it empirically, and it is not a universal truth that everyone accepts. If you went to the Middle East and said, “There can’t be just one true religion,” nearly everyone would say, “Why not?” The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.

Some people say, “I don’t believe in Christianity because I can’t accept the existence of moral absolutes. Everyone should determine moral truth for him- or herself.” Is that a statement they can prove to someone who doesn’t share it? No, it is a leap of faith, a deep belief that individual rights operate not only in the political sphere but also in the moral. There is no empirical proof for such a position. So the doubt (of moral absolutes) is a leap.

Some will respond to all this, “My doubts are not based on a leap of faith. I have no beliefs about God one way or another. I simply feel no need for God and I am not interested in thinking about it.” But hidden beneath this feeling is the very modern American belief that the existence of God is a matter of indifference unless it intersects with my emotional needs. The speaker is betting his or her life that no God exists who would hold you accountable for your beliefs and behavior if you didn’t feel the need for him. That may be true or it may not be true, but, again, it is quite a leap of faith.10

The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then to ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness you must doubt your doubts. My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs—you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared.

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. At 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 nonbelievers will rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing one another. This happens when each side has learned to represent the other’s argument in its strongest and most positive form. Only then is it safe and fair to disagree with it. That achieves civility in a pluralistic society, which is no small thing.

Gee and all this time I thought it was that we'd have something to fight over?

Unfortunately the last paragraph seems to be ignored by many.

I'll give the first chapter at least a read. I like this idea, Nomad!

Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.

Nice rhetorical trick. He does not address doubts based on a lack of evidence; that's an entire category that does not require faith to sustain. This is one problem I have with apologetics; logic is often used, but not rigorously. It's entirely possible to doubt a conclusion because insufficient evidence for it has been presented, and yet that doubt is not based on an unprovable alternate belief.

You don't have to believe B to doubt A, in other words.

And further than that, he implies that there can be no evidence *against* faith that is not itself a faith; science stands in opposition.

His overall message, though, resonates. I have indeed moved to disagreement from intolerance, and it's through careful discussion and consideration of evidence presented, not on denouncement. We'd be a lot better off if the shrill voices switched to discussion and persuasion rather than condemnation.

(not related to Robear's A,B,C's)

Is it a case of A, B, and C? Where A, skepticism, is on the rise in response to B, fundamentalism, which is on the rise due to C, rapid scientific advances. I see a lot of people who are invested in C but are accused of A when they respond to B. Pride in or support of C seems threatening to B who harden themselves against A that does not exist en masse.

I'm sure there is the flip side of the coin somewhere but its not a point of view I understand. We need more faith not fundamentalism. But really, we need more love. And I think fundamentalism is seeded from a need for love, safety through routine and structure and belonging but mostly finding the latter.

For example, if you doubt Christianity because “There can’t be just one true religion,” you must recognize that this statement is itself an act of faith. No one can prove it empirically, and it is not a universal truth that everyone accepts. If you went to the Middle East and said, “There can’t be just one true religion,” nearly everyone would say, “Why not?”

It's not that there can't be one true religion, it's all that religions claim to be the one true one, and they can't all be right.

I admire the spirit of the project, but despair for its success. The reason for this is that Keller conflates faith with truth-claims. When Kierkegaard wrote about the "leap of faith", he wasn't writing about the virgin birth, or particular miracles, he was talking about embracing the great unknown and mysteries. A "Leap of faith" is not a cheap short-cut around our reason or good scientific method, but a deliberate choosing of the absurd over the rational. The leap of faith is HARD, not easy.

Just as cheap faith & bad faith abounds on one side, cheap relativisms abound on the other. Relativism is no more a magic bullet than faith is. Just because none of us knows the "God's eye view of truth" doesn't mean that some ideas aren't better than others, it just means we don't have any magic shortcuts to telling the best ideas from the others.

So I applaud Keller for getting at one central truth: the key to understanding others is humility. People of faith should be humble since they choose to believe without proof. Skeptics should be humble because they don't have revealed truth to fall back on. Both people of faith and skeptics remain human with human failings and limitations. My cheap insight is that until folks are willing to admit that we have limits and live within them, people will keep fighting.

Hmm. Those excerpts started quite neutral, but it seemed to go very Christian focused at the end. Is the book a discussion of religion in general or Christianity specifically?

"Blind faith of skepticism?" I'm out. I may check it out of the public library, but given that first chapter, looks like another re-hashing of old BS. Isputting stock in reason, logic, and proof is blind? And again, Skeptic does not mean Atheist you Twat!

And I really have to disagree with the idea that orthodoxy is on the rise, with donations geting lower each year, and religious affiliation declining among younger and younger generations. The percentages on the over 40, vs under 40(especially in the under 30 group) according to the last census as well as independent polling(USA Today, Time) has shown this. You cannot be rising, and have increasingly smaller indoctrination.

Now if you want to argue that orthodox and new fundamentalist organizations have a larger media arm, we might get somewhere.

Nomad, does he go into those who don't believe in Christianity due to physical evidence? Or is the book more philosophical as those excerpts suggested? Also does he do more of that "logic" or is that really just the hook and in later chapters he goes into great depth when explaining things?

Looks interesting, thanks for sharing Nomad.

I believe Keller argues that since some religions are patently more abusive than others, there can be a ranking of them. He concludes that there could be one "true" religion. And later on, he modifies Lewis's arguments, saying that the fact that desires exist that can't be satisfied by ordinary things proves that God exists, just like food exists to satisfy hunger, etc.

Sigh. Here's the Reader's Guide from his website.

Thanks for the guide Robear. I may forward this to my old Philosophy of God professor. The logical fallacies just in the abbreviated version are priceless.

Look, if you want good writing involved in proofs for the existence of god, justification for Christian Morality, go read Bonhoeffer, Aquinas, Thomas Moore, Anselm(the father of the Deontological argument). I would urge you to follow up Anselm with Kant and Satre, however.

Karen Armstrong just published a book called, "The Case for God" and while I have not read it, I did get a chance to hear her speak about it at length. Seems to touch on similar issues. Might be worth a look if anyone is interested.

I agree that everyone should attempt to make a case for the opposition when examining their own beliefs.

The best cases for religion amount to:

- X said so. (where X is either an authority or popular opinion)
- It'd be really nice if this were true.
- You can't prove it's not.
- Life sure is awesome.
- This one time I experienced something I couldn't explain.

These assertions are not going to move any scientifically serious person. Furthermore, no seriously religious person is going to be swayed by science as they base their faith, well, on faith. Any believer whose faith can be not shaken, but destroyed by science, already had serious doubts. And again, while I strongly encourage everyone to examine their beliefs in such a way, I have found that in many cases, the religious simply do not understand how science works, nor do the scientific know how to sincerely feel the profound touch of religion.

To me, this looks to be an attempt to drag science down to the same level as religion; nothing but a set of beliefs that are purely a matter of faith, and therefore equally valid.

Nomad, I respect the sincerity of your belief and I know you're trying to do good here, and in your life. However, I don't find this any more compelling than, "c'mon, open your heart."

There is a great gulf today between what is popularly known as
liberalism and conservatism. Each side demands that you not
only disagree with but disdain the other as (at best) crazy or (at
worst) evil. This is particularly true when religion is the point at
issue. Progressives cry out that fundamentalism is growing rapidly
and non-belief is stigmatized. They point out that politics has
turned toward the right, supported by mega- churches and mobilized
orthodox believers.
Conservatives endlessly denounce what
they see as an increasingly skeptical and relativistic society. Major
universities, media companies, and elite institutions are heavily
secular, they say, and they control the culture.

Which is it? Is skepticism or faith on the ascendancy in the
world today? The answer is Yes. The enemies are both right. Skepticism,
fear, and anger toward traditional religion are growing in
power and influence. But at the same time, robust, orthodox
belief in the traditional faiths is growing as well.

My emphasis.

I am bothered here by the use of the term "orthodox" because Keller is very unclear as to how he means the term to be used. Does he mean that the believers are orthodox to their own beliefs? That seems a bit odd as that is a given. Or does he mean that today's conservative Christianity is yesterday's orthodoxy? If that is the case, than Keller needs to brush up on his nomenclature. Today's conservative Christianity only vaguely resembles Christian orthodoxy of the first few centuries of Christendom.

Simply, Fundamentalism does not equal orthodoxy.

We seem to have enough initial interest. I was thinking we could discuss it chapter by chapter starting with some good comments already about the introduction. When it fizzles out we can move to the next chapter if that sounds ok. We can go as far in as people are interested.

Sonicator wrote:

Hmm. Those excerpts started quite neutral, but it seemed to go very Christian focused at the end. Is the book a discussion of religion in general or Christianity specifically?

Christianity specifically, but religion in general is discussed as well.

Elliottx wrote:

Nomad, does he go into those who don't believe in Christianity due to physical evidence? Or is the book more philosophical as those excerpts suggested? Also does he do more of that "logic" or is that really just the hook and in later chapters he goes into great depth when explaining things?

Looks interesting, thanks for sharing Nomad.

The book is much like the introduction. His attitude throughout is very non-combative, which is why I like it.

And further than that, he implies that there can be no evidence *against* faith that is not itself a faith; science stands in opposition.

Science in no way stands in opposition of the possibility of the Divine.

I'm going to try and have a look into it. If I don't get around to it, I can at least enjoy watching the discussion here.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I agree that everyone should attempt to make a case for the opposition when examining their own beliefs.

The best cases for religion amount to:

- X said so. (where X is either an authority or popular opinion)
- It'd be really nice if this were true.
- You can't prove it's not.
- Life sure is awesome.
- This one time I experienced something I couldn't explain.

These assertions are not going to move any scientifically serious person. Furthermore, no seriously religious person is going to be swayed by science as they base their faith, well, on faith. Any believer whose faith can be not shaken, but destroyed by science, already had serious doubts. And again, while I strongly encourage everyone to examine their beliefs in such a way, I have found that in many cases, the religious simply do not understand how science works, nor do the scientific know how to sincerely feel the profound touch of religion.

That's very well said. I may steal that in the future.

They're not at all incompatible. Science is only incompatible with Biblical literalism, not faith.

Malor wrote:

They're not at all incompatible. Science is only incompatible with Biblical literalism, not faith.

To be fair, science is incompatible with all faith that makes testable claims that contradict the evidence, not just biblical literalism.

Robear wrote:
Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.

Nice rhetorical trick. He does not address doubts based on a lack of evidence; that's an entire category that does not require faith to sustain. This is one problem I have with apologetics; logic is often used, but not rigorously. It's entirely possible to doubt a conclusion because insufficient evidence for it has been presented, and yet that doubt is not based on an unprovable alternate belief.

You don't have to believe B to doubt A, in other words.

And further than that, he implies that there can be no evidence *against* faith that is not itself a faith; science stands in opposition. :-)

My eyes started rolling pretty hard at that point. There seems to be a chronical inability among apologetics to understand scientific skepticism's attitude. It's fairly exasperating.

I have to say this is a pretty interesting idea, but I don't think I'll have the time to do the required reading, sadly.

Interesting. I will have to read this in more depth when I'm not at work.

While I disagree with Keller's statement that "every doubt is an opposite belief", it's nice to see someone acknowledge that doubt is just part of faith, and that we should accept and deal with it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Great idea, Nomad. I'll try to hunt down a copy sometime this week -- I'm always up for a thoughtful spiritual discussion.

I'll look for a copy I can read a bit more into before I buy, but definitely interested in the discussion. I'll go check out the first chapter.

Edit: Not completely done with the first chapter yet, but a couple interesting thoughts. At first he goes to great lengths to showcase his doubts and cognitive dissonances with religion as he grows up, so much so that I was rather shocked when he mentioned rather offhand that he went into the ministry. I've adjusted my viewpoint now, and I'm sure from the author's perspective it was entirely just trying to connect with his audience, but it was not the initial impression I had (that he was struggling for purchase spiritually). Not that he couldn't have joined the ministry anyway, just a layer of conviction there that had not been shown to that point.

Anyway... that aside I was very interested by this paragraph.

First, each side should accept that both religious belief and
skepticism are on the rise. Atheist author Sam Harris and Religious
Right leader Pat Robertson should each admit the fact that
his particular tribe is strong and increasing in influence. This
would eliminate the self- talk that is rampant in each camp, namely
that it will soon be extinct, overrun by the opposition. Nothing
like that is imminently possible.
If we stopped saying such things
to ourselves it might make everyone more civil and generous toward
opposing views.

Less "the world is against us and we must remain strong, pure, and loyal, or we will be doooooomed" talk would aid in creating a civil dialogue quite a bit.

Edit: Edit: Oh, and regarding religious belief being on the rise... he actually points more towards Africa, Asia, and immigrant communities in both America and Europe (Christianity and Islam) than towards a revival of home grown American fundamentalism. Or seems to anyway. Apparently I'm bad at reading some of this.

Malor wrote:

They're not at all incompatible. Science is only incompatible with Biblical literalism, not faith.

So how do you classify people of "faith" that say dinosaurs never existed and the earth is 10,000 years old?

Quote:

And further than that, he implies that there can be no evidence *against* faith that is not itself a faith; science stands in opposition.

Science in no way stands in opposition of the possibility of the Divine.

Correct. Science stands in opposition to the idea that opposing a faith means embracing an assumed faith. One can oppose a faith or anything else based on a lack of evidence rather than a faithful belief.

The use of "if you oppose faith, you are then expressing a faith" is a common and flawed apologetic technique. I was not clear when I made the above statement, sorry for the confusion.

However, there *could* be scientific evidence for God. The problem is that we've not seen anything that doesn't have an alternate naturalistic explanation, and I've explained before how adding God into the mix actually complicates an explanation, rather than simplifying it.

I'm interested in this idea but I might not have time to do all the reading. I'll certainly keep track of the thread.

Nomad wrote:

At 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 nonbelievers will rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing one another. This happens when each side has learned to represent the other’s argument in its strongest and most positive form. Only then is it safe and fair to disagree with it. That achieves civility in a pluralistic society, which is no small thing.

I like this approach. It is what needs to happen. I find the level of division in the US to be quite scary. Sections of society continually condemning 'the other' as base, inhuman or evil is what leads to attrocities.

So how do you classify people of "faith" that say dinosaurs never existed and the earth is 10,000 years old?

They may have faith, but they also argue that these are scientific facts, and thus that part of their belief is subject to evidentiary review.

Bear wrote:
Malor wrote:

They're not at all incompatible. Science is only incompatible with Biblical literalism, not faith.

So how do you classify people of "faith" that say dinosaurs never existed and the earth is 10,000 years old?

Does anyone believe the dinosaurs never existed and the earth is only 10,000 years old?

Ulairi wrote:

Does anyone believe the dinosaurs never existed and the earth is only 10,000 years old?

Not typically in P&C, but yeah.

(on a more serious note, look up Young Earth theory. It's relatively popular.)

Ulairi wrote:
Bear wrote:
Malor wrote:

They're not at all incompatible. Science is only incompatible with Biblical literalism, not faith.

So how do you classify people of "faith" that say dinosaurs never existed and the earth is 10,000 years old?

Does anyone believe the dinosaurs never existed and the earth is only 10,000 years old?

A couple of my friends from college actually do. They aren't stupid people, but seem to expend a tremendous amount of energy fooling themselves.

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread too as it has already started some interesting discourse. I really don't have the time to read anopther book (especially to a schedule) unfortunately. I have to say, I'm not keen on the bits that have been pasted here, the logical fallacies and just plain wrongness of some of the things he says are irritating and it is clearly written with an agenda. I am absolutely in favour of promoting empathy, respect and understanding of eachothers positions. This just serves to muddy the waters further and obfuscate that most important message.

Pages