Are all of us narrow and exclusive? (The Reason for God part 9)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).


In my last post, I wrote about the three ways our culture attempts to deal with the problem of the divisiveness of religion:

1. outlaw it
2. condemn it
3. or privatize it.

Of these three, I mostly encounter the second approach:  condemn it.  This approach takes the form of statements that are peppered throughout our culture. These statements are so common and so supposedly self-evident that to question them, one is automatically thought to be bigoted or narrow-minded. 

Over the years, I've heard statements like these:

• "All major religions are equally valid and basicalhy teach the same thing."
• "Each religion sees only a part of the whole. None can see the whole truth"
• "It is arrogant to insist that your religion is right and to convert others to it."

The interesting thing about these statements is the assumptions that all of them make.  Assumptions that prove to be quite problematic.

The first two statements all assume that the one making the claim has exclusive access to all knowledge of spiritual reality.  The third statement is actually self-refuting, for the one stating it is trying to persuade or convert the listener. 

If we are honest, we have to acknowledge that all of us hold to beliefs about the nature of ultimate reality that are exclusive.  Keller rightly notes that, "It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right.  We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways." 

Keller argues that our approch should not be to get rid of religion to get rid of divisiveness:

"It is common to say that 'fundamentalism' leads to violence, yet...all of us have fundamental, unprovable faith-commitments that we think are superior to those of others.  The real question, then, is which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to those with whom they differ?  Which set of unavoidably exclusive beliefs will lead us to humble, peace-loving behavior?"

Christianity contains fundamentals that produce people of peace, love, and justice. At the heart of Christianity is a one who forgave his enemies and died for them.  Those who follow him and learn from his example cannot help but be compassionate, empathetic, and tolerant with those outsde of their faith community. 

Tragically, many who claim to follow Jesus look nothing like him. Their divisive, self-righteous, violent behavior is not derived from actually following the example of Jesus, but from ignoring it.

Do you think that all of us have "fundamental, unprovable faith-commitments that we think are superior to other" or is Keller overstating his case?

Aren't all religions the same? (The Reason for God part 8)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).

This week, we're tacking the topic of exclusivity.  In my years of working in collegiate ministry, before coming to work at Grace Fellowship, I frequently ran into this type of objection to Christianity.  It gets voiced in different ways, such as:

• "All religions are basically the same"
• "There can't be one 'right' religion, that's intolerant and close-minded"
• "All religious paths are equally valid, they are like multiple paths up the same mountain"
• Religious exclusivity leads to intolerance, division, and even violence.  The view that their is only "one way" is bigoted and extremist."

And so on.

In "The Reason for God", Tim Keller admits that religion often creates a slippery slope in the human heart.  Those who think they have "the truth" look down on others who don't.  Those who think their practice of the truth will somehow save them and make them right with God feel superior to those who don't believe as they do. This can lead to self-righteousness, divisiveness, and aggression towards others. 

In response to this, our culture has proposed three solutions to the divisiveness of religion:

1.  Outlaw religion:  Religion is too destructive.  The world would be better off without it.

2.  Condemn religion:  Criticize it so heavily that it will be emotionally and psychologically undesirable to hold to any strong, exclusive belief.

3.  Privatize it:  You can believe it passionately, even evangelize for it, but keep it out of the public square.

All three of these solutions to the damage that religion can cause are being promoted in our world.  Do you think that any of them are effective?

Keller, while acknowledging the destructiveness of religion, claims that none of these can deal effectively with the divisive tendency of religion.

What do you think?  Are any of these solutions valid?  Would you propose something different? 

The Reason for God (part 7)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).

Here is a brief clip from Tim Keller, explaining why he wrote "The Reason for God" and "The Prodigal God."  He states that his main thesis in "The Reason for God" is that "it makes more sense of life to believe in God than not believe in God."  It makes more sense of what we see and experience.  What do you think of his thesis?

Reason and Experience (The Reason for God part 6)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).

During our Sunday night discussion of "The Reason for God", the members of my small group shared about the role that both reason and existential experience played in their decision to follow Christ. Our stories varied. Some had to think through the basic tenets of Christianity before becoming Christians. Others began their spiritual journey with powerful experience of the presence of God and then entered a season of working through the rationality of their faith. Some combination of reason and experience was present in all of our stories. Mine was no different.

I grew up in an irreligious home. I rarely attended church except for occasional visits to Sunday school or Vacation Bible School with friends in the neighborhood. Like a jigsaw puzzle with no box top, I collected pieces of the Christian story but had no idea how it all fit together until, at the age of 13, someone essentially gave me "the boxtop"...an outline of the New Testament that explained the gospel, the invitation of eternal life to all who received the forgiveness and leadership of Jesus. Finally, the puzzle pieces of Christianity that I collected over the years fit together into a coherent whole. I began to follow Jesus and experienced a sense of His presence, peace, and power that I had not previously encountered.

That experienced remained unchallenged at first. Though my family was irritated by my enthusiasm for all things Jesus, they rarely offered a direct challenge to what I believed. The more significant attacks on my faith in Christ did not occur until I entered college. Starting my freshman year, everything foundational belief I held was dismantled.  I was forced to think deeply, read widely, question persistently, and examine fully "why I believed what I believed." Like a body with no germ fighting agents, my confidence in the veracity of Christianity was vulnerable and needed to be either strengthened or replaced with a trust in something more reliable.

And strengthened it was.

What about you? Whether you are a skeptic or a believer, all of us have reasons for the beliefs we hold and experiences that support or contradict those beliefs. Did you come to your position first through experience, then by thinking it through? Or vice versa? Or a bit of both? Do you have a reasonable basis for "why you believe what you believe?" Do you seek as much evidence for your current world view as you do for the alternative world views that you dismiss?

Objections to Christianity (The Reason for God part 5)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).

Our small group began studying the "Reason for God" DVD last night.  We'll spend six sessions discussing some of the most common objections to Christianity.  Before I begin blogging about our first discussion, here is a list of the objections we will be discussiong:

• Isn't the bible a myth?  Hasn't science disproved Christianity?
• How can you say there is only one way to God?  What about other religions?
• What gives you the right to tell me how to live my life? Why are there so many rules?
• Why does God allow suffering?  Why is there so much evil in the world?
• Why is the church responsible for so much injustice?  Why are Christians such hypocrites?
• How can God be full of love and wrath at the same time?  How can God send people to Hell?

If you are a believer, which of these objections to you hear the most from skeptical friends?  Which objection do you wrestle with the most and why?

If you are a skeptic,which objection do you find the most troubling and why?

Though these objections are considered among the most common, are there any other objections that you think should have made this list?

A Way Forward (The Reason for God part 4)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.).


If skeptics and believers often demand too much in the way of "proof" for God's existence, then are we stuck with relativism?  Are stuck with no way to evaluate what we believe?  Keller proposes a way forward that he calls "critical rationality."  He notes that even scientists evaluate data with the belief that they cannot come to a conclusion that is irresistible.  If, for example, there is a better way to explain the data that seems to support evolution, then the theory of evolution will need to be seriously overhauled or abandoned.

"Critical rationality" means that "there are some arguments that many or even most rational people will find convincing, even though there is no argument that will be persuasive to everyone regardless of viewpoint.  It assumes that some systems of belief are more reasonable than others, but that all arguments are rationally avoidable in the end...this doesn't mean we can't evaluate beliefs, only that we should not expect conclusive proof, and to demand it is unfair.

If a theory explains the data and events better than any other theory, then it is excepted, even though in the "strong rationalist" sense, it is not proved.

With this in mind, philosopher Richard Swineburne argues that belief in God can be tested and justified (though not proven) in the same way.   "The view that there is a God, he says, leads us to expect the things we observe-that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains human beings with consciousness and with an indelible moral sense.  The theory that there is no God, he argues, does not lead us to expect any of these things."  Belief in God fits better with what we see and observe.

Keller notes that even though we can't prove our view of God, that doesn't mean that we can't evaluate the grounds for different religious beliefs and notice that some views, or even one view seems more reasonable than others.

What do you think of this approach to evaluating beliefs...does this seem like a corrective to the demand for airtight rationality on one hand, and absolute relativism on the other?

Is it reasonable to believe in God? (The Reason for God part 3)

(I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book. Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occurring in my group.)


In recent years, a number of books on the topic of atheism have been published.  Their authors (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) insist that there really aren't any sufficient reasons for believing in God.

But what do they mean by sufficient?

Keller argues that these popular atheist writers are demanding a "logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone.  They won't believe in God until they get it."

These authors are looking for evidence for God based on verifiable sense experience or a logical explanation that any sane, clear thinking person simply could not reject.

Keller also notes that some Christians are guilty of this same demand when they claim their arguments for faith are so strong that only the close-minded, stubborn or fearful would reject them.

He thinks that the demand for what some have called "strong rationalism" is problematic, given that the majority of philosophers think that strong rationalism is impossible to defend.  For starters, this position is self-refuting.  The belief that "I only believe what my five senses tell me" is a statement of  philosophy about science.  It can't be verified empirically.  It is ultimately a belief. 

Another problem with strong rationalism is that it assumes "that is is possible to achieve 'the view from nowhere', a position of almost complete objectivity" that is simply not possible.  When we evaluate ideas, we all bring experiences and beliefs that influence their thinking and reasoning.  Because of this, it's not fair to demand an argument that all rational people would have to assent to. 

What do you think of this point?  Are these pop-atheist writers demanding too much?  Do Christians at times claim too much?

Keller proposes a way forward, beyond strong rationalism and relativism.  A position that he calls "critical reasoning."  I'll discuss it in my next post.

The Leap of Doubt (The Reason for God part 2)

I'm reading through Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" and taking my small group through a DVD study based on the book.  Over the next few weeks, I'll be blogging about the book, the study, and the discussions occuring in my group.

I want to kick things off discussing how Keller lays out his approach.  In his opening chapter, he suggests that both believers and skeptics should approach doubt in a new way and that by doing so, even if they don't change their positions, they will come to a place of greater humility and graciousness with those who disagree with them.  This is certainly a worthwhile goal in a culture like ours; one that seems to grow more polarizing with each passing day.

Keller first suggests that believers look at the reasons behind their faith:

"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 probling questions of a smart skeptic."

Keller then suggests that skeptics 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.  You canot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B."  For example, "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."

What do you think of Keller's suggestion for how both believers and skeptics should approach doubt?  Do you find it helpful or unhelpful?  Would this promote more gracious dialogue and less shouting and name calling?

The Reason for God (part one)

My church small group is about to start a new DVD based study this fall of Tim Keller's best selling book "The Reason for God."  The study is unique, in that Keller interacts with a group of skeptics in unscripted sessions that cover six of the main objections to Christianity he regularly encounters from visitors to his Manhattan based congregation. My posts this fall will be based on the book, the DVD study, and comments and discussions occuring in my small group.

Check out the trailer below: