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.
Here are a few excerpts from the introduction:
I find your lack of faith—disturbing.
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.
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.
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.