My top three reads for 2011

Even with the craziness of life with two newly adopted children, I somehow managed to feed my voracious appetite for books.  I discovered a lot of great reads in 2011 but these made it to the top of the list:

1.  "Jesus, the CIA, my Father, and Me, a Memoir...of Sorts" by Ian Morgan Cron.  Great writing.  Honest, humorous, touching, and heart-breaking.  Cron chronicles growing up with an alcoholic father.  Though I grew up in a mostly functional family, I still encountered some of my own wounds within Cron's story.  One of the best books I've read in a long time.

2.  "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller.  Truth be told, I plowed through this book a few years ago but read it so quickly that I didn't really get to benefit from it as much as I wanted.  I am taking a small group through a DVD curriculum based on the book and read it again as preparation for the study.  This is, hands down, one of the best explanations of the reasonableness of Christianity that I've ever read.  Based on his question and answer sessions with skeptics after his church services, this is a great gift to give to someone looking for answers from a gracious, thoughtful Christ-follower.  Reading it reminded me of why its reasonable to be a Christian in the 21st century.

3.  "Kisses from Katie" by Katie Davis.  How do you explain a high achieving homecoming queen who moves to Uganda and becomes the mother of 14 girls?  You don't.  Instead, you read her story and learn from this remarkable young woman and her heart of compassion for those in need.  I was inspired and challenged while having my categories completely rattled.

What were your best reads of 2011?

God, evil, and suffering (The Reason for God part 15)

(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.).

How does a Christ follower reconcile his or her belief in a good and powerful God with the reality of suffering and evil?  Honestly, there is no easy answer.  This is, in my opinion, the achilles heel of Christianity.  This is the toughest issue to resolve because, at the end of the day, it is ultimately a irreducible problem.  It can never be removed by argument.  And really...who among us is going to "feel better" about horrific tragedy if we have a crisp and clear answer to this issue?  None of our philosophizing about this issue will get God "off the hook."  Yet ironically, philospher Peter Kreeft comments that, "the Christian God came to earth to deliberately put himself ON the hook of human suffering."

Keller points out that, while Christianity "does not provide the reason for each experience of pain, it provides deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair."   Keller makes the following observations and claims:

• Jesus did not face his death with the fearlessness that one would expect of a "Braveheart"-type hero.  He was deeply disturbed and shook up by his impending death (Mark 14:33-34), tried to avoid his death (“If it be your will…take this cup from me”—Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42), and when he was on the Cross, cried out that God had forsaken him (Matthew 27:46).
• Why this reaction?  He was more overwhelmed by his death because it involved something he had never known:  As God incarnate, Jesus had never been separated from God the father until now.
• "We cannot fathom...what it would be like to lose not just spousal love or parental love that has lasted several years, but the infinite love of the Father that Jesus had from all eternity. Jesus’s sufferings would have been eternally unbearable. Christian theology has always recognized that Jesus bore, as the substitute in our place, the endless exclusion from God that the human race has merited.
• "The death of Jesus was qualitatively different from any other death. The physical pain was nothing compared to the spiritual experience of cosmic abandonment.  Christianity alone among the world religions claims that God became uniquely and fully human in Jesus Christ and therefore knows firsthand despair, rejection, loneliness, poverty, bereavement, torture, and imprisonment.
• "If we again ask the question: “Why does God allow evil and suffering to continue?” and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not know what the answer is. However, we now know what the answer isn’t. It can’t be that he doesn’t love us. It can’t be that he is indifferent or detached from our condition. God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was willing to take it on himself.

What does the idea of a suffering God have on your understanding of the problem of reconciling belief in God with the reality of evil and suffering? 

 

Strange evidence for God (The Reason for God part 14)

(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.).

Keller makes an astounding claim in his chapter dealing with the tension of God's existence in a world full of evil and suffering.

While readily admitting that this is an enormous problem for believers, he notes that it is potentially an even greater problem for unbelievers. He notes that C.S. Lewis initially rejected the idea of God because he couldn't reconcile God's existence with the cruelty of life. But as Lewis pondered it, he concluded that the problem of evil was even more difficult to reconcile with his atheism. In his mind, suffering actually “provided a better argument for God's existence than one against it.”

Lewis stated that:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of 'just' and 'unjust'?...What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?...Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too-for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies...Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple."

Many of our modern objections against the existence of God have to do with our sense of fair play and justice. We believe that people ought not to suffer or inflict evil on one another. But evolution is based upon the principle of natural selection and it depends upon the death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak. On what basis can we judge the natural world to be wrong and unfair? We can only judge it by admitting that there is some sort of extra-natural or supernatural standard by which to make the judgment. Otherwise, we are just offering up our own subjective opinion.

“The atheist does not have a good basis for being outraged at injustice,” says Keller, “which, as Lewis points out, was the reason for objecting to God in the first place.”

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga put it this way:

Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness [if there were no God and we just evolved]? I don’t see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live…A [secular] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort…and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (…and not just an illusion of some sort), then you have a powerful…argument for the reality of God.”

The problem of tragedy and suffering is a problem for everyone. At first glance, it does seem as if taking God out of the equation would make it easier to grapple with, but it doesn’t. It is at least as big a problem for unbelievers as it is for believers. 

Since the problem of evil is a problem for all of us...how do you reconcile it?  If you are a theist of some sort how do you reconcile evil and suffering with belief in the existence of a good and powerful God?  If you are a skeptic of some sort, how do you reconcile your belief that there is such a thing as an objective standard of justice and fairness in a world that is simply the product of chemical reactions occuring over time?

We'll unpack a few of Keller's thoughts on how a Christ-follower might approach it in my next post.

Saint Bernards, "No see 'ems", and suffering (The Reason for God part 13)

(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 Keller's chapter entitled "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?", he cites philosopher J.L. Mackie's book entitled, "The Miracle of Theism." Mackie asserts the following:

"If a good and powerful God exists, he would not allow pointless evil. But because there is much unjustifiable, pointless evil in the world, the traditional good and powerful God could not exist. Some other god or no god may exist but not the traditional God."

Yet other philosophers have discovered a flaw, a hidden premise in this reasoning. That premise being that, "If evil appears pointless to me then it must be pointless." This reveals a tremendous amount of faith in one's cognitive faculties. A faith that asserts that, "If I cannot see or comprehend a point to suffering and evil, then there can't be a reason for it."

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga unpacks this hidden premise with his "no see 'ems" illustration. He states that if you were looking in a pup tent for a St. Bernard and you didn’t see one, it is reasonable to assume that there is no St. Bernard in your tent. But if you were looking for a "no see um" in your tent (a tiny sand gnat with a huge painful bite) and you didn't see one, it is not reasonable to assume that they are not there. Because, after all, no one can see 'em.

Keller then notes that "many assume that if there were good reasons for the existence of evil, they would be accessible to our minds, more like a St. Bernard than like "no see 'ems", but why should that be the case?"

Pastoral experience sheds more light on this as well. Over the years, in both my own life and the lives of those around me, tragedy and pain at times bring personal and spiritual growth. If, over time we can see good reasons for suffering in at least some of pain and tragedy of life, then isn't it possible that, from God's point of view, there are good reasons for all of it?

Keller concludes the following, "If you have a God great and transcendent enough to be mad at because he hasn't stopped evil and suffering in the world, then you have (at the same moment) a God great and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue that you can't know. Indeed, you can't have it both ways."

Keller goes on to claim that, while evil and suffering isn't evidence against God, it could actually be evidence for the existence of God.

More on that unusual claim in my next post.

The Problem of Evil (The Reason for God part 12)

(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.).


The day started out like any other. I rose early from my bed and after taking care of a few things; I headed out the door for a quick early morning trip to the grocery store. As I headed back home and drove out of the store parking lot, I noticed that the traffic was unusually light for rush hour in Miami. I turned on the radio and caught the middle of a broadcast about something unusual. I couldn’t figure out what was happening but the grave tone of the journalist’s voice told me it was serious. Upon returning home and walking in the front door, my roommate, who was normally at work by now, was watching the television, staring in disbelief. I quickly discovered why. Images of the twin towers burning and crumbling to the ground poured from the TV set. I sat in stunned silence, horrified at what was taking place.


The French writer Simone Weil said that only two things can pierce the human soul: beauty and affliction. On September 11th, 2001, the spear of affliction cut deeply into the soul of every American with terrifying force. Like a blast of cold air or a slap in the face, we woke up afresh to the reality that we live in a world full of evil and suffering.

Every person, when confronted with the tragedy of life asks, “Why?” “How can this happen? How can God allow this?” Regardless of one’s belief or lack of belief in a supreme being, God is almost always questioned when we face the problem of evil.

For Christians, the problem of evil is enormously difficult. This, I think, is our most difficult issue to reconcile with belief in God.  Our belief in the truthfulness of the bible creates a difficult dilemma. Both the Bible and our own experience tell us that the world is filled with the presence of evil. But the Bible also tells us three important characteristics about God:

1. God is all knowing.
2. God is all-powerful.
3. God is good.

These three characteristics of God, combined with the reality of evil, create our dilemma. If God is good and loving, then it is reasonable to think that he wants to deliver the creatures he loves from evil and suffering. If God is all knowing, then it is reasonable to believe that he knows how to deliver us from evil and suffering. And if God is all-powerful, it is reasonable to believe that he is able to free us from evil and suffering. Yet each day, we wake up in a world full of acts of evil and awful suffering. If God is really loves us, if he’s all knowing and all-powerful, then why doesn’t he do something?

I'll start unpacking my thoughts and Keller's in my next few posts, but for now, how do you respond to the reality of evil and suffering in our world?  Is this a "defeater" for you regarding the possibility of the existence of God?  If you are a believer, how do you reconcile the tensions I list above? 

Love and liberty (The Reason for God part 11)

(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 small group this week, we talked about the fact that some people reject Christianity because they view it as a confining straightjacket. They see it as an oppresive system that stifles human flourishing.

Keller makes the following observation,"What is the environment that liberates us if we confine ourselves to it, like water liberates the fish?  Love. Love is the most liberating freedom-loss of all.

One of the principles of love - either love for a friend or romantic love - is that you have to lose independence to attain greater intimacy.   If you want the 'freedoms' of love - the fulfillment, security, sense of worth that it brings - you must limit your freedom in many ways."



His observation brought to mind a sappy country western song I heard years ago sung by Paul Overstreet called "Ball and Chain."

Love don't feel like a ball and chain to me.
When I am with you my heart beats wild and free.
If you are my jailer darlin', throw away the key!
'Cause love don't feel like a ball and chain to me.

It makes a point that anyone who's been in love can resonate with.  I sacrifice for my wife because I love her.  When we were dating, I looked for ways to please her.  My behavior changed dramatically and from the outside, it looked restrictive but from the inside, it didn't feel that way at all. 

Over a lifetime though, a love relationship will only be healthy if both people surrender their independence and sacrifice for the other. It would be exploitive if only one party did the sacrificing and giving.

Keller notes that, "In the most radical way, God has adjusted to us - in his incarnation and atonement.  In Jesus Christ he became a limited human being, vulnerable to suffering and death.  On the cross, he submitted to our condition - as sinners - and died in our place to forgive us.  In the most profound way, God has said to us, in Christ, 'I will adjust to you.  I will change for you.  I'll serve you though it means a sacrifice for me."

"Once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren't afriad of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in him."

 

Freedom and Constraint (The Reason for God part 10)

(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.).


Is Christianity an oppresive religion?  Is it a bunch of confining rules that stifle human freedom and flourishing?  That was our topic of discussion for this week.

One of things we noted as we talked was that freedom is a bit more complicated that it first appears.  For example, if I want to lose weight, I have to restrict myself from certain foods.  Yet this restriction leads to a life of health.  If I want to learn how to play a musical instrument, I have to restrict myself to practice, practice, practice.  But this practice leads to an expansion of freedom of musical expression that would not be possible without restricting myself to a training regimen.

Granted, restriction alone doesn't lead to freedom.  Discipline has to be congruent with one's nature and capacities. My wife is naturally gifted in artistic expression.  Several years ago she confined herself to the island of Manhattan and for two years, she attended The Neighborhood Playhouse, where she submitted herself to a training regimen that brought to fruition the gifts and abilities that she possessed.  If I had gone through the same process, the results would have been terrible!  The restrictions my wife placed upon herself were congruent with her nature and thus brought her great freedom of artistic expression.

In light of this reality that freedom often comes through the right kinds of constraints, Keller posits that, "If we only grow intelectually, vocationally, and physically through judiciuos constraints-why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth?  Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shoudn't we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it?"

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: