The Reason for God

Hmm. I still think that is one hell of a stretch to say that he doesn't mean what he says when he says that blaspheming the holy ghost is the only unforgivable sin. Why, for instance, would he go as far as to say that badmouthing Jesus and Yahweh is perfectly fine, but dissing the holy ghost is the One Big No-No?

Keller's fourth chapter centers around the objection that "The Church Is Responsible For So Much Injustice". He starts out by noting that many who object to Christianity do so for reasons of bad personal experience with church members. He notes that if you have a bad experience with Christians, you'll be less likely to accept "the intellectual case" for Christianity, while if your experiences are good, you'll be more likely to accept it.

Does he honestly believe that an "intellectual case for Christianity" should and does turn on *personal* experience? I think this is a real slip, since it shows that he believes that an intellectual (presumably logic based) argument can turn on personal feelings. That's not the way things work. Personal feelings may overcome intellectually correct arguments, but will never make them stronger. They will simply make someone's judgments less trustworthy in matters of rational thought.

He describes the common misconception that Christians should be morally better than non-Christians by arguing that the people most attracted to the church are the ones most in need of help. They then should grow and improve with time and faith. He rejects the idea that moral improvement is of any use at all in salvation. He expects because of that lack of emphasis on actual moral progression that there will be more non-believers living good lives than Christians living good lives, using as his analogy the fact that there are more sick people in hospitals than out in the general public.

What's missing here is that in hospitals, people either die, or get better - that is, their health improves. But in Keller's church, the patients don't actually improve in a way that means anything to others. They don't have to behave better, because they are in the process of being saved. It's enough to believe. Works are unnecessary, optional at best. In Keller's hospital, as long as you faithfully take the medicine the outcome does not matter.

He then addresses religion and violence. He quotes Hitchens that religious misunderstandings and personal failings of those in power can lead to terrible abuses, and religion can amplify those tendencies, aggravating tensions that already exist. But he attempts to counter that by noting correctly that the Communists and others also caused a lot of violence. And by the same mechanism that Hitchens explains. However, he then tags all these supposedly non-religious movements with the label "rational". And that's a serious misnomer.

First, Communism functions as a religion, using the same techniques to unite people and whip them into a fervor. It's correct to note that Communist states are atheistic, but it's not correct to believe that they did not make a religion out of Communism itself.

Secondly, no one seriously believes that Stalin and Mao's and Pol Pot's states were in any way "rational" states. That's a very serious misuse of the term. We *know* what a state developed according to Enlightenment rationalist principles looks like, because we live in it. And yet he uses the idea of a "rational" state - taking propagandists at face value - to stand in opposition to religion. (Is religion now "irrational" in Keller's mind? Apparently not, but then why use the term?)

Violence is a feature of both religion and secularism. It is unique to either and both use similar or identical techniques to instill violence in societies (compare religious fanaticism to nationalist fanaticism). He ends up rejecting the idea that violence in society is any indicator of whether it is good or not. I think this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and he does some damage to the idea of rationalism in US history, but I have to agree that the objection raised here is not one that is helpful to either side.

He addresses fanaticism by arguing that True Believers in Christianity are humble and definitely not fanatical. So by his definition, if you are in any way fanatical - overly moralistic, judgemental, whatever - you are not sufficiently Christian. (This is a problem for his no works argument, because his definition of fanaticism is based on *behavior* - ie, deeds. Now they matter, before they didn't.)

He then argues that Jesus "criticized" religion - more properly, that he changed or reformed it. He warns that religion is not a way to gain power over others or show how good you are. He argues that Christians are required to seek out and stop injustice from within the church itself, and that that makes Christianity focused on others rather than the self (but again, isn't that works?) He then extends this by comparing one honor-based system of ethics to Christianity, and argues that if you are not focused on yourself for your source of ethical and moral judgements, you are actually reasoning in a Christian way, because Christianity is focused on others, not the self. (This is of course a bad generalization, because there are other ethical and moral systems that are also centered on others. Are we all Jews because Judaism is another other-centric religion? I guess we're all Buddhists, too.)

He then lists acts of social justice that were done by Christians, while not comparing them to non-Christians (which in some cases are impossible - saying that Christians should be specially regarded because they opposed slavery in England in the early 19th century is like asserting that breathing people should have special favor because they opposed slavery. Everyone was Christian in England at the time.) But I agree that Christians have done good works for society (although again his assertion that works don't matter rings false here.)

I hope this raises some interesting points.

Salvation is by faith, accepting Christ's work as payment for our debt. Real faith then is exemplified by works as James points out. Those works are not the reason we are accepted by God, it is only because of our acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ.

Salvation is by faith. Faith leads to works. Works do not lead to salvation.

However, James disagrees. "You see that a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone". This is no problem for me - I don't believe in harmonizing the gospels - James gave his own viewpoint which was different from the other gospels. But if you do, it's a real issue. Either James is wrong, or works *do* matter.

In James 1, he connects works with faith, noting that people who don't match faith with deeds quickly forget who they are. In chapter two, he actually asks how if someone has faith without works they "profit from it"? The doctrine of grace answers "Because faith is all, and works don't lead to salvation."

Didn't James know that? For James, without works, faith is useless, it will not save anyone. He notes at the end of chapter for that for someone who knows to do good, but does not do it, that is sin.

(James also asserts that converting sinners will cover a "multitude of sins" and save one from death, so apparently conversion is a ticket for salvation. He also urges church members to confess their sins to one another and receive forgiveness; something we don't usually see in Protestant churches. James is not quite with the program.)

For James, faith AND works save you - without the works, you are not saved. Yet other gospels disagree. It can't be both.

Robear wrote:
Salvation is by faith, accepting Christ's work as payment for our debt. Real faith then is exemplified by works as James points out. Those works are not the reason we are accepted by God, it is only because of our acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ.

Salvation is by faith. Faith leads to works. Works do not lead to salvation.

However, James disagrees. "You see that a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone". This is no problem for me - I don't believe in harmonizing the gospels - James gave his own viewpoint which was different from the other gospels. But if you do, it's a real issue. Either James is wrong, or works *do* matter.

In James 1, he connects works with faith, noting that people who don't match faith with deeds quickly forget who they are. In chapter two, he actually asks how if someone has faith without works they "profit from it"? The doctrine of grace answers "Because faith is all, and works don't lead to salvation."

Didn't James know that? For James, without works, faith is useless, it will not save anyone. He notes at the end of chapter for that for someone who knows to do good, but does not do it, that is sin.

(James also asserts that converting sinners will cover a "multitude of sins" and save one from death, so apparently conversion is a ticket for salvation. He also urges church members to confess their sins to one another and receive forgiveness; something we don't usually see in Protestant churches. James is not quite with the program.)

For James, faith AND works save you - without the works, you are not saved. Yet other gospels disagree. It can't be both.

For James, faith without works is not really faith at all, and without faith, there is no salvation. There is no disagreement here. Check out the last portion of Matt 12 that Pale and I were discussing. One's works show the make-up of the heart.
I'm also fairly sure that if someone sins against someone else in a Protestant church, it is encouraged for that person to confess to and ask for forgiveness from that person

Paleocon wrote:

Hmm. I still think that is one hell of a stretch to say that he doesn't mean what he says when he says that blaspheming the holy ghost is the only unforgivable sin. Why, for instance, would he go as far as to say that badmouthing Jesus and Yahweh is perfectly fine, but dissing the holy ghost is the One Big No-No?

It might be a stretch if you only read those verses out of context, but when included with the rest of the section it seems clear. Instead of accepting the message of Christ as the work of God, they remain unrepentant and reject it as the work of Satan.

For James, faith without works is not really faith at all, and without faith, there is no salvation. There is no disagreement here.

Thanks. Not trying to beat this to death, but it's as much a learning process for me as it is for you. So I appreciate your patience.

Matthew 12 is interesting. Jesus heals people, which he ascribes to the presence of the Holy Spirit, but the Pharisees to an evil spirit. Jesus seems to be upset by this, and argues that the Pharisees are naming the Holy Spirit an evil spirit in spite of the fact that they are *also* claiming to heal in the same way (and therefore, Jesus asks them if *their* healing is not evil in source). So he says that that is essentially denying the good that comes from having the Holy Spirit, because they don't like him doing it. Hence, Jesus gets upset and tells them they won't be forgiven for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

It's also interesting that healing is not considered a sign that what Jesus said is true, presumably because the Pharisees do it too (and note that Jesus *says* that they do it). The Pharisees hear of the healing, and still ask Jesus for a sign, and Jesus says he won't give them one. Today we consider miraculous healing a sign from God. But at that time, while it leads some to wonder whether he's the "Son of David", it seems to be on a different level from the signs we expect to see today. It also is interesting that Jesus regards the Pharisees as capable of healing by throwing out demons. Today we'd probably say that was Jesus' province alone, but he clearly considered it part and parcel of representing God, and not exclusive to him. Another glimpse of the real environment of the time, with healers being relatively commonplace and Jesus just another one for much of his ministry?

If Jesus was looking to start a new religion, why would he acknowledge that the Pharisees can be filled with the spirit of God and heal and do good with it? Perhaps because he was a *Jewish* teacher...?

One thing I forgot about Keller. He describes Jesus as being patient, kind and the like with people. But Jesus is reported at various times to become upset, yell at people, and he particularly seems to have had a problem with non-Jews in some of the Gospels, as when he had to be chastised after refusing to heal a Gentile at first. His argument about Jesus being an example of peace and acceptance is kind of hard to swallow, even though it's the accepted wisdom (no one wants to remember the awkward stuff he's reported to have done. Why a guy who talks about throwing out demons and leaving them homeless would take an evil spirit and put it into a pig is, well, an awkward question.)

I read chapter five, on Hell. It's actually worse than the preceding four in terms of disconnected thoughts and weird logic. I'd love to have seen references for some of his assertions, but no such luck. He depends heavily on CS Lewis for such insights as magic and science both being based on a desire to control the physical world, and both being modern in origin (1500 on), with an imputation that science is essentially anti-Christian which he immediately (and weakly) denies. Oddly, though, he does not condemn engineering, which is *definitely* based on a desire to control the physical world. Hell is presented as a state of mind (which would be news to Jonathan Edwards and the early Christians, but no matter...) Other ancient religions teach only of vengeful gods (no mention that there are plenty of counter-examples). God is not just a god of love because the only way to figure out that God *is* a god of love is from the Bible, and the Bible says that God is also a god of judgment, so if we believe in a god of love, we must also accept the god of judgment. (Again, the only possible answer is Christianity, as it has been for the whole book. I'm starting to the the God in the title is a typo for Jesus, and the word belief should have been Christianity.)

This was actually an important chapter for me. It started off well, for a page or so, and I looked forward to a serious discussion of the questions he raised. Then it veered off into "blame the nonbeliever" and answered nothing. Very frustrating.

Robear wrote:

I read chapter five, on Hell. It's actually worse than the preceding four in terms of disconnected thoughts and weird logic. I'd love to have seen references for some of his assertions, but no such luck. He depends heavily on CS Lewis for such insights as magic and science both being based on a desire to control the physical world, and both being modern in origin (1500 on), with an imputation that science is essentially anti-Christian which he immediately (and weakly) denies. Oddly, though, he does not condemn engineering, which is *definitely* based on a desire to control the physical world. Hell is presented as a state of mind (which would be news to Jonathan Edwards and the early Christians, but no matter...) Other ancient religions teach only of vengeful gods (no mention that there are plenty of counter-examples). God is not just a god of love because the only way to figure out that God *is* a god of love is from the Bible, and the Bible says that God is also a god of judgment, so if we believe in a god of love, we must also accept the god of judgment. (Again, the only possible answer is Christianity, as it has been for the whole book. I'm starting to the the God in the title is a typo for Jesus, and the word belief should have been Christianity.)

This was actually an important chapter for me. It started off well, for a page or so, and I looked forward to a serious discussion of the questions he raised. Then it veered off into "blame the nonbeliever" and answered nothing. Very frustrating.

Great post. Can you post some of the quotes you are reffering to, or at least page numbers so I can follow your observations?

I'm reading on a Kindle, so I don't have page numbers. But it's not a long chapter, really. Takes about 10 minutes to read, maybe 15.

Robear wrote:

He depends heavily on CS Lewis for such insights as magic and science both being based on a desire to control the physical world, and both being modern in origin (1500 on), with an imputation that science is essentially anti-Christian which he immediately (and weakly) denies.

If that is his position, then he is an exceptionally poor scholar. Coptic Christians were practicing magic with use of spells, charms, incantations, etc. long before 1500. Very long before.

That's part of what's bugging me, Phoenix. He's presenting arguments to his audience that are just not supportable, but when he occasionally provides sources, they're from Lewis or other apologists, or very narrowly chosen quotes from Darwin and others he presumes to be anti-Christian in some way. It's deceptive, unfortunately, and very frustrating.

Lewis was writing in the 1930's, and was ignorant of many things we understand better today. Books like "The Science of Good and Evil" are much better on this kind of topic, in my opinion.

Robear wrote:

I'm reading on a Kindle, so I don't have page numbers. But it's not a long chapter, really. Takes about 10 minutes to read, maybe 15.

Just download the free kindle reader for PC and use the snipping tool to grab chunks to post. I'm interested to see where you find some of the ideas about

magic and science both being based on a desire to control the physical world, and both being modern in origin (1500 on), with an imputation that science is essentially anti-Christian which he immediately (and weakly) denies.

Here is one section (page 72):

In C.S. Lewis's classic The Abolition of Man, he outlines what he considers to be a major difference between the ancient and the modern view of reality. Lewis attacks our smug belief that ancient people believed in magic and later modern science came along and supplanted it. As an expert in the medieval age and how it gave way to modernity, Lewis knew that there had been very little magic in the Middle Ages, that the high noon of magic was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the very time that modern science was developing. The same cause, he contended, gave rise to them both.

(My emphasis in bold.)

I am completely perplexed why Keller did not due his research on the magic issue. His book was published in 2008 and the development of the understanding of magic in the time of the ancients is not new. The discoveries at Qumran and Nag Hammadi clearly demonstrate a use of magic (and some theorize the Essenes were practitioners of magic). While I can understand Lewis not having the 1945 Nag Hammadi and the 1947-1956 Qumran discoveries available for The Abolition of Man published in 1943, I am scratching my head wondering why Keller is using Lewis to prop up the notion that magic was all but unheard of during the era of the ancients.

Just to be completely clear, are you saying that they in fact practiced magic, or that they believed in the practice of magic. (One implies that magic exists and functions, the other simply that they believed it did)?

I am more interested about this assertion of 16th century as the creation of science. I am pondering where Archimedes and Hippocrates fit into that view? As well as this idea of magic when you can see history replete with sorcery, mysticism, divination going into tales like the Arabian Nights, Beowulf, the traditions of Germanic and Druidic peoples, as well as African mysticism.

Nosferatu wrote:

Just to be completely clear, are you saying that they in fact practiced magic, or that they believed in the practice of magic. (One implies that magic exists and functions, the other simply that they believed it did)?

Depending on the society, both. We know Coptic Christians practiced magic. We know the ancient Jews had groups that practiced magic and some that believed in the power of magic. And we know that segments of Greco-Roman society believed in magic.

Regardless, the notion that we are smug because we believe the ancients believed in and/or practiced magic is without foundation.

As I recall, the next bit after Phoenix's quote was a desire to control the world around us. But yes, that's the section I referred to.

Edit - Remember, one invalid element in a chain of reasoning is enough to invalidate it entirely. What is frustrating is that that can be corrected, but instead of checking his facts and assertions, he goes on to double down, because he's fixing the facts to his conclusion and not the other way around. He needs to argue that science and magic are efforts to control the world around one's self, while Christianity is submission to and acceptance of it as it is, so he just blithely ignores major holes in his thesis.

For example, religion including Christianity was in ancient times a method of trying to influence the world around the worshipper. Belief in God allows one to heal the sick (by casting out the demons which cause illnesses such as blindness and leprosy), defy death (both immediately as Lazarus and as a promised afterlife) and to guarantee the "blessings of God" on a people as long as they are observant of the Law. These are in themselves an attempt to control the world and fit it to our desires, which is exactly what he claims Christianity does *not* do. In particular, he never mentions intercessory prayer, which is both ancient and modern in Christianity, and can't be taken as any other than an attempt to fit the world to our desires. Miracles represent this desire as well.

How in the world do we trust the *reason* of a writer who just walks around this stuff without even acknowledging it? I mean, he's sincere, but he's actively misleading people here. This chapter also has at least one really cheap rhetorical trick, that of associating magic and science, with science as allowing people to do things that were previously considered "disgusting and impious", then trying to deny that's what he said. If he really thought that were wrong, he'd not have put it in the book. But it's a central part of his argument, that science and magic are born of attempts to control the world. (No mention of a desire to *understand* the world, that I recall.)

It's really frustrating to see him take on big issues with logic that would be out of place in an eighth grade book report.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Here is one section (page 72):

In C.S. Lewis's classic The Abolition of Man, he outlines what he considers to be a major difference between the ancient and the modern view of reality. Lewis attacks our smug belief that ancient people believed in magic and later modern science came along and supplanted it. As an expert in the medieval age and how it gave way to modernity, Lewis knew that there had been very little magic in the Middle Ages, that the high noon of magic was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the very time that modern science was developing. The same cause, he contended, gave rise to them both.

(My emphasis in bold.)

I am completely perplexed why Keller did not due his research on the magic issue. His book was published in 2008 and the development of the understanding of magic in the time of the ancients is not new. The discoveries at Qumran and Nag Hammadi clearly demonstrate a use of magic (and some theorize the Essenes were practitioners of magic). While I can understand Lewis not having the 1945 Nag Hammadi and the 1947-1956 Qumran discoveries available for The Abolition of Man published in 1943, I am scratching my head wondering why Keller is using Lewis to prop up the notion that magic was all but unheard of during the era of the ancients.

Lewis does not seem to say there there was no belief in magic (or all but unheard of) before the 16th century, but that during the 16th and 17th centuries the idea was far more prevalent. He never suggests there was no science before the 16th century. If I understand correctly Keller is using this illustration to explain the way man has interacted with the world around him, first through mysticism, and then through applied science.

Keller page 71 wrote:

In ancient times it was understood that there was a transcendent moral order outside the self, built in to the
fabric of the universe. If you violated that metaphysical order there were consequences just as severe as if you violated
physical reality by placing your hand in a fire. The path of wisdom was to learn to live in conformity with this
unyielding reality. That wisdom rested largely in developing qualities of character, such as humility, compassion,
courage, discretion, and loyalty.
Modernity reversed this. Ultimate reality was seen not so much as a supernatural order but as the natural world,
and that was malleable. Instead of trying to shape our desires to fit reality, We now seek to control and shape reality to
fit our desires. The ancients looked at an anxious person and prescribed spiritual character change. Modernity talks
instead about stress-management techniques.

Robear wrote:

As I recall, the next bit after Phoenix's quote was a desire to control the world around us. But yes, that's the section I referred to.

Edit - Remember, one invalid element in a chain of reasoning is enough to invalidate it entirely. What is frustrating is that that can be corrected, but instead of checking his facts and assertions, he goes on to double down, because he's fixing the facts to his conclusion and not the other way around. He needs to argue that science and magic are efforts to control the world around one's self, while Christianity is submission to and acceptance of it as it is, so he just blithely ignores major holes in his thesis.

For example, religion including Christianity was in ancient times a method of trying to influence the world around the worshipper. Belief in God allows one to heal the sick (by casting out the demons which cause illnesses such as blindness and leprosy), defy death (both immediately as Lazarus and as a promised afterlife) and to guarantee the "blessings of God" on a people as long as they are observant of the Law. These are in themselves an attempt to control the world and fit it to our desires, which is exactly what he claims Christianity does *not* do. In particular, he never mentions intercessory prayer, which is both ancient and modern in Christianity, and can't be taken as any other than an attempt to fit the world to our desires. Miracles represent this desire as well.

How in the world do we trust the *reason* of a writer who just walks around this stuff without even acknowledging it? I mean, he's sincere, but he's actively misleading people here. This chapter also has at least one really cheap rhetorical trick, that of associating magic and science, with science as allowing people to do things that were previously considered "disgusting and impious", then trying to deny that's what he said. If he really thought that were wrong, he'd not have put it in the book. But it's a central part of his argument, that science and magic are born of attempts to control the world. (No mention of a desire to *understand* the world, that I recall.)

It's really frustrating to see him take on big issues with logic that would be out of place in an eighth grade book report.

The understanding that the "observance of the law" gives a Christian power to heal, exorcise and defy death, is a stark contrast to biblical teaching, in fact, almost quite the opposite. Prayer isn't so much about getting from God what we want, as if He were some year round Kris Kringle and we just kept sending Him additions to our toy list. Prayer is our communicating our dependence on the Divine. I also don't see the "cheap rhetorical trick" you allege. Can you show me where Keller claims that magic and science are one and the same? Two attempts to accomplish the same goal can be very, very different.

Nomad wrote:

Prayer isn't so much about getting from God what we want, as if He were some year round Kris Kringle and we just kept sending Him additions to our toy list. Prayer is our communicating our dependence on the Divine

Heard a joke from a comedian a day or so ago that sort of applies here. I don't remember the exact words, but it was essentially "All those prayers to god where you ask for something and nothing happens? That isn't God ignoring you, it's God saying 'No'."

Nomad wrote:

The understanding that the "observance of the law" gives a Christian power to heal, exorcise and defy death, is a stark contrast to biblical teaching, in fact, almost quite the opposite. Prayer isn't so much about getting from God what we want, as if He were some year round Kris Kringle and we just kept sending Him additions to our toy list. Prayer is our communicating our dependence on the Divine.

That is the interpretation that some branches of Christianity espouse, but not that all branches espouse. Part of the problem in nailing down what exactly is "Christian" is the wide breadth of interpretations that various denominations and sects have of the Bible. For that matter, there's even the issue of deciding which books are part of the Bible and which aren't.

Disclaimer: I know that may sound like a cheap jab (I tried writing it different ways but just can't find a better way to phrase what I'm saying), but it's not meant that way.

The understanding that the "observance of the law" gives a Christian power to heal, exorcise and defy death, is a stark contrast to biblical teaching, in fact, almost quite the opposite. Prayer isn't so much about getting from God what we want, as if He were some year round Kris Kringle and we just kept sending Him additions to our toy list. Prayer is our communicating our dependence on the Divine. I also don't see the "cheap rhetorical trick" you allege. Can you show me where Keller claims that magic and science are one and the same? Two attempts to accomplish the same goal can be very, very different.

Jesus admits that the Pharisees also heal, he just attributes that to powers other than God. Healing was definitely regarded as a way to tell whether a teacher was really divinely inspired, and that's found in the Bible. The power of God was used to conduct miracles to bring people into the faith and to distinguish real prophets from false.

There's a reason I used the term "intercessory prayer". That's a valid and common Christian phenomenon, and you can't define it away. Methodists would cite the bit about "ask and it shall be given" as a means of justifying intercessory prayer, and it's so deeply ingrained there are many Christian songs about it.

I didn't claim Keller says that magic and science are the same, but that they spring from "the same impulse", which he describes with a CS Lewis quote. Note where he ends the quote.

There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the "wisdom" of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious...

He could have ended the quote after the word "technique", but he had to throw in the bit about science leading people to do "disgusting and impious" things. Three paragraphs later, he's backing off that strong attack on science, but if he really didn't mean to create that association in people's minds, why leave it in? That's the rhetorical cheap trick, creating an association in people's minds and then trying to say he didn't mean it, then plowing on ahead with the weaker form of the same association.

Note also that you've argued in effect that Christianity does not depend on "knowledge, self-discipline and virtue", because all of those are related to deeds, but rather on grace and submission to God. That's different from Lewis' conception, obviously, in at least some parts. At best I think you could say those three are the *result* of grace, but Lewis is describing them as causative.

Robear wrote:
The understanding that the "observance of the law" gives a Christian power to heal, exorcise and defy death, is a stark contrast to biblical teaching, in fact, almost quite the opposite. Prayer isn't so much about getting from God what we want, as if He were some year round Kris Kringle and we just kept sending Him additions to our toy list. Prayer is our communicating our dependence on the Divine. I also don't see the "cheap rhetorical trick" you allege. Can you show me where Keller claims that magic and science are one and the same? Two attempts to accomplish the same goal can be very, very different.

Jesus admits that the Pharisees also heal, he just attributes that to powers other than God. Healing was definitely regarded as a way to tell whether a teacher was really divinely inspired, and that's found in the Bible. The power of God was used to conduct miracles to bring people into the faith and to distinguish real prophets from false.

There's a reason I used the term "intercessory prayer". That's a valid and common Christian phenomenon, and you can't define it away. Methodists would cite the bit about "ask and it shall be given" as a means of justifying intercessory prayer, and it's so deeply ingrained there are many Christian songs about it.

I didn't claim Keller says that magic and science are the same, but that they spring from "the same impulse", which he describes with a CS Lewis quote. Note where he ends the quote.

There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the "wisdom" of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious...

He could have ended the quote after the word "technique", but he had to throw in the bit about science leading people to do "disgusting and impious" things. Three paragraphs later, he's backing off that strong attack on science, but if he really didn't mean to create that association in people's minds, why leave it in? That's the rhetorical cheap trick, creating an association in people's minds and then trying to say he didn't mean it, then plowing on ahead with the weaker form of the same association.

Note also that you've argued in effect that Christianity does not depend on "knowledge, self-discipline and virtue", because all of those are related to deeds, but rather on grace and submission to God. That's different from Lewis' conception, obviously, in at least some parts. At best I think you could say those three are the *result* of grace, but Lewis is describing them as causative.

I note your use of the term intercessory prayer, but even when we bring things before God to ask for His action or provision, again and again we are instructed to do it in an attitude of "Your will be done". When someone who can not see all ends asks for a certain end, it seems wise to defer to the One who can see all ends.

I also note your disapproval of the bit about science (and "magic") leader people to do "disgusting and impious" things. Just as many horrific things have been done in the name of Christ, one need not look far to find atrocities done in the name of science. One that comes immediately to mind is one Paleocon has brought up several times on these boards, the torture and vivisection of Koreans by the Japanese, Unit 731.

Robear wrote:

That's part of what's bugging me, Phoenix. He's presenting arguments to his audience that are just not supportable, but when he occasionally provides sources, they're from Lewis or other apologists, or very narrowly chosen quotes from Darwin and others he presumes to be anti-Christian in some way. It's deceptive, unfortunately, and very frustrating.

This seems a very unfair assessment in itself. I quick look to the section in the back where all his quotes are properly referenced shows a wide array of sources, not all "apologists". Even in the chapter we are discussing he pulls thoughts from:

Robert Neelly Bellah
, Harvard B.A. ’48, Harvard Ph.D. ’55, American sociologist and educator, served for 30 years as professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley.
Czesław Miłosz was a Polish poet, prose writer and translator. From 1961 to 1998 he was a professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1980 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. He is widely considered one of the greatest poets of the 20th century.
Miroslav Volf (born 1956) is an influential Christian theologian and currently the Henry B. Wright Professor of Theology at Yale University Divinity School and Director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture.

...and others. Is it unreasonable when writing a book on reasoning for God that your references would include those who have shaped their lives around the study of the Divine?

And don't sleep on CS Lewis...
Lewis began his brilliant academic career as an undergraduate student at Oxford, where he won a triple first, the highest honours in three areas of study.[23] Lewis then taught as a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, for nearly thirty years, from 1925 to 1954, and later was the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. Using this position, he argued that there was no such thing as an English Renaissance. Much of his scholarly work concentrated on the later Middle Ages, especially its use of allegory. His The Allegory of Love (1936) helped reinvigorate the serious study of late medieval narratives like the Roman de la Rose. Lewis wrote several prefaces to old works of literature and poetry, like Layamon's Brut. His book "A Preface to Paradise Lost" is still one of the most valuable criticisms of that work. His last academic work, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (1964), is a summary of the medieval world view, the "discarded image" of the cosmos in his title.
I understand you may not agree with his views, but the intellect of such a prestigious scholar and distinguished professor who taught at both Oxford and Cambridge is hard to deny.

Sure, but we know more now than we did then. Some of what he's saying is simply obsolete, drawn on facts that were superseded by later study.

There probably were cavemen as smart as Einstein, but they couldn't do what he did because they didn't KNOW what he did.

Malor wrote:

Sure, but we know more now than we did then. Some of what he's saying is simply obsolete, drawn on facts that were superseded by later study.

There probably were cavemen as smart as Einstein, but they couldn't do what he did because they didn't KNOW what he did.

Cavemen to Einstein is a compelling comparison, but that is hardly what we are dealing with here. Lewis had access to the vast majority of information we have about that specific era in history, in fact it was his area of expertise.

I note your use of the term intercessory prayer, but even when we bring things before God to ask for His action or provision, again and again we are instructed to do it in an attitude of "Your will be done". When someone who can not see all ends asks for a certain end, it seems wise to defer to the One who can see all ends.

Surely you can see the logical problem in asking for something for someone under the condition that you have no belief it will be granted? Why ask? We're getting into predestination and the like here, too.

I also note your disapproval of the bit about science (and "magic") leader people to do "disgusting and impious" things. Just as many horrific things have been done in the name of Christ, one need not look far to find atrocities done in the name of science. One that comes immediately to mind is one Paleocon has brought up several times on these boards, the torture and vivisection of Koreans by the Japanese, Unit 731.

You are missing my point here. Not only is he factually wrong about magic, and about religion not being about ways to control things that are otherwise out of our control, but he deliberately smears the worldview based on scientific inquiry, in an effort to bias his reader against it. I'm not arguing comparative atrocities, but rather that he goes out of his way to equate science and magic. This is not "reason", it's rhetoric.

Is it unreasonable when writing a book on reasoning for God that your references would include those who have shaped their lives around the study of the Divine?

Is it reasonable when writing a book on *reasoning* for God that your references would include those who have shaped their lives around the study of Reason? Again, consider his claim, that he presents *reason-based* arguments for God. So far, he's missed that mark seriously, and done little more than to repeat pretty standard apologetic lines of thought and stake out one corner of Christianity as authoritative. (Did you notice that he's not very accepting of the underpinnings of Catholic or liberal Christianity? His positions are clearly evangelical. This is not even a book on general Christian thought, but one particular modern flavor.)

I find that so far he has *misrepresented* science and non-Christian thought and religion, and his attempts at logical argumentation are incomplete at best. It's very disappointing. I actually enjoy Lewis more than this, the man had a way with words.

Nomad wrote:

I also note your disapproval of the bit about science (and "magic") leader people to do "disgusting and impious" things. Just as many horrific things have been done in the name of Christ, one need not look far to find atrocities done in the name of science. One that comes immediately to mind is one Paleocon has brought up several times on these boards, the torture and vivisection of Koreans by the Japanese, Unit 731.

First, Unit 731 experimented on Chinese, not Koreans. Second, it represented the far extreme of things supposedly done in the name of science. That list of so-called scientific atrocities is a very short list: Mengele's horrific "experiments", Unit 731, and the Tuskegee experiment. And the reason each of those happened was not because of science, but because of the experimenters view of the experimentees. The Japanese hated the Chinese. Just look up the Rape of Nanking to see what they were doing to Chinese in the name of racial superiority. Same with Mengele and the Nazis. And the Tuskegee experiment would have never happened had whites at the time viewed blacks as equals.

So do these things represent a failure of science or a failure of human nature? And how do you respond to the fact that stringent ethical guidelines have been put in place by scientists to govern what they can and cannot do when it comes to human experimentation. And they did this without the threat of eternal punishment by a deity or crazy rules like not eating bacon.

And even if you blame science completely, those few events pale in both scope and the level of horror that has done in the name of the various gods since the dawn of humanity.

Nomad wrote:

Lewis does not seem to say there there was no belief in magic (or all but unheard of) before the 16th century, but that during the 16th and 17th centuries the idea was far more prevalent. He never suggests there was no science before the 16th century. If I understand correctly Keller is using this illustration to explain the way man has interacted with the world around him, first through mysticism, and then through applied science.

My concern is not about Lewis.

He espoused his views based on the known academics of the time. Keller has no excuse. (His book was published in 2008.) The understanding of magic in the ancient era is not an unknown with our current level of knowledge. Additionally, magic was not confined to some tiny cult on the fringe of the Roman Empire. It would be irresponsible to claim that the Coptic Christians of the first two centuries of Christianity were equitable in size to a Jim Jones or Hale Bopp cult. Coptic Christians dominated Egypt and, from what has been discovered, were fascinated by magic and many were practitioners thereof. As I stated earlier, there is a body of research that theorizes the Essenes believed in magic. We even have the Acts of the Apostles, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus writing about Simon the Magician who some claimed practiced sorcery, bewitched people and performed levitation. At some point, we cannot ignore the fact that magic was widely known throughout the ancient world and had its place among the trove of religious beliefs that existed in the Middle East around the time of Christ.

Keller's problem is that he is so enamored with Lewis, he lets his biases guide his writing. As gifted a writer I believe Lewis was, I have no doubt that if he were writing The Abolition of Man today, his choice of historical reference would be much different. Keller seems to be willing to accept Lewis' understanding of the facts and simply relay them as truth. That is either 1) intentional or 2) sloppy. Neither of those casts a particularly good light on Keller.

Still, Keller has a Master of Divinity and a Doctorate of Ministry from two respected seminaries. He knows how to do basic primary source research.

So why didn't he?

I understand you may not agree with (Lewis') views, but the intellect of such a prestigious scholar and distinguished professor who taught at both Oxford and Cambridge is hard to deny.

Again, I am not taking issue with Lewis. He was, indeed, a brilliant scholar and a great Christian apologist. However, he could only do his scholarship based on what was current at the time. Our entire academic paradigm shifted with the discoveries at Qumran and Nag Hammadi, discoveries that C.S. Lewis had only a modicum of exposure to (if any at all) before his death in 1963. As must as I appreciate Lewis' breadth of work and scholarship, much has been discovered that makes some of his scholarship obsolete. Relying on Lewis' scholarship (which is to be distinguished from his apologia) today would be as foolish as relying on the medical knowledge of Jonas Salk to treat people in 2009.

Lewis had access to the vast majority of information we have about that specific era in history, in fact it was his area of expertise.

Except for the Nag Hammadi and Qumran libraries along with the throngs of archeological finds that have been discovered since his death.

It's interesting too that apologetic criticisms of science tend to focus on experiments driven by eugenics, which was not exactly supported by evidence by the 1920's and 30's. Also, it's tied misleadingly to Soviet and Chinese Communism and their abuses. Eugenics plays into one of our bugaboos, racial division, and it's also easy to tie to Darwinism, even though it's been discredited for about a century.

Why don't apologetics focus on nuclear weapons, gas and other WMDs in warfare, animal testing, environmental abuses and pollution and other outcomes of science and engineering that are arguably a lot worse than Mengele and Unit 731? I can think of a few reasons but they are not flattering. It seems that science is a problem when it can be claimed to lead to eugenics and Communism and both of those tied to Darwin, but not when it's not plausibly related to an "anti-Christian" science like evolution, and especially not when other aspects are beneficial to us as a society. Bias again.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I also note your disapproval of the bit about science (and "magic") leader people to do "disgusting and impious" things. Just as many horrific things have been done in the name of Christ, one need not look far to find atrocities done in the name of science. One that comes immediately to mind is one Paleocon has brought up several times on these boards, the torture and vivisection of Koreans by the Japanese, Unit 731.

First, Unit 731 experimented on Chinese, not Koreans. Second, it represented the far extreme of things supposedly done in the name of science. That list of so-called scientific atrocities is a very short list: Mengele's horrific "experiments", Unit 731, and the Tuskegee experiment. And the reason each of those happened was not because of science, but because of the experimenters view of the experimentees. The Japanese hated the Chinese. Just look up the Rape of Nanking to see what they were doing to Chinese in the name of racial superiority. Same with Mengele and the Nazis. And the Tuskegee experiment would have never happened had whites at the time viewed blacks as equals.

So do these things represent a failure of science or a failure of human nature? And how do you respond to the fact that stringent ethical guidelines have been put in place by scientists to govern what they can and cannot do when it comes to human experimentation. And they did this without the threat of eternal punishment by a deity or crazy rules like not eating bacon.

And even if you blame science completely, those few events pale in both scope and the level of horror that has done in the name of the various gods since the dawn of humanity.

Robear wrote:

It's interesting too that apologetic criticisms of science tend to focus on experiments driven by eugenics, which was not exactly supported by evidence by the 1920's and 30's. Also, it's tied misleadingly to Soviet and Chinese Communism and their abuses. Eugenics plays into one of our bugaboos, racial division, and it's also easy to tie to Darwinism, even though it's been discredited for about a century.

Why don't apologetics focus on nuclear weapons, gas and other WMDs in warfare, animal testing, environmental abuses and pollution and other outcomes of science and engineering that are arguably a lot worse than Mengele and Unit 731? I can think of a few reasons but they are not flattering. It seems that science is a problem when it can be claimed to lead to eugenics and Communism and both of those tied to Darwin, but not when it's not plausibly related to an "anti-Christian" science like evolution, and especially not when other aspects are beneficial to us as a society. Bias again.

Let me try to be clearer here. Science is not an absolute good. Science is not an absolute evil. Science in itself is just a tool for discovery. I am not supporting the idea that science is bad, and neither is Keller or Lewis. I am saying with them both that science is a powerful tool that can be used effectively for either good or evil purposes. The purpose that Keller and Lewis are referring to is the same one I quoted above:

In ancient times it was understood that there was a transcendent moral order outside the self, built in to the
fabric of the universe. If you violated that metaphysical order there were consequences just as severe as if you violated
physical reality by placing your hand in a fire. The path of wisdom was to learn to live in conformity with this
unyielding reality. That wisdom rested largely in developing qualities of character, such as humility, compassion,
courage, discretion, and loyalty.
Modernity reversed this. Ultimate reality was seen not so much as a supernatural order but as the natural world,
and that was malleable. Instead of trying to shape our desires to fit reality, We now seek to control and shape reality to
fit our desires. The ancients looked at an anxious person and prescribed spiritual character change. Modernity talks
instead about stress-management techniques.
Surely you can see the logical problem in asking for something for someone under the condition that you have no belief it will be granted? Why ask? We're getting into predestination and the like here, too.

Where did I say that we should ask for things under the condition that we have no belief it will be granted?

Robear wrote:

Is it reasonable when writing a book on *reasoning* for God that your references would include those who have shaped their lives around the study of Reason? Again, consider his claim, that he presents *reason-based* arguments for God. So far, he's missed that mark seriously, and done little more than to repeat pretty standard apologetic lines of thought and stake out one corner of Christianity as authoritative. (Did you notice that he's not very accepting of the underpinnings of Catholic or liberal Christianity? His positions are clearly evangelical. This is not even a book on general Christian thought, but one particular modern flavor.)

I love the thread, and the conversation is good reading on all sides, but this quote here is why I wasn't compelled enough by Keller specifically to be able to pick up and read the book. This didn't appear to be a book on the reason for God, but rather a book on the reason for evangelical conservative Protestantism. Which in and of itself isn't a problem, but it's very much not of interest to me, because I was raised that way and learned and read a lot of materials on that through my early twenties.

Where did I say that we should ask for things under the condition that we have no belief it will be granted?

Either you believe God will do as He pleases, or you believe he'll answer your prayer. If the former, why ask? If the latter, aren't you trying to change the world to fit your desires? I'm not being clever here - even elements of Christianity show that religion has as one of it's purposes advantaging the adherent in the world, just like science and magic. Prayer is a big selling point of Christianity; so much so that it's entered the vernacular ("...and my prayers were answered, I got a bonus that helped me cover the bill!").