One of my friends did that "grab the nearest book to you and post the Nth sentence on page M" meme. I grabbed the nearest book (Keller's
The Reason for God) and her sentence was the same as mine! This is clearly a sign from God that I should finish my review of the book (
the first part of my review is already generating a lot of discussion in the comments). So, here goes. As in the previous part, we're following the book's chapters.
Intermission( Read more... )I'm a bit of an amateur too, as it happens, so I'll leave the epistemology there, and refer you to the professionals, or at least, the professionals in training:
Chris Hallquist's review concentrates specifically on the philosophical problems with Keller's book. Let's look at some of Keller's specific arguments.
The Reasons for FaithThe Clues of GodThis chapter deals with hints that God exists, as Keller correctly points out that this is a necessary pre-cursor to Christianity. He deals in clues, as he accepts that these arguments are not conclusive, although he thinks some of them are strong. Let's look at Keller's clues:
( Read more... ) The knowledge of GodKeller argues that we already know God exists, deep down. Not, as the New Testament says, from what has been made, but, as C.S. Lewis's New New Testament says, from our moral sense.
( Read more... )The problem of sinKeller identifies sin as placing something other than God at the centre of our lives. Keller claims that anything other than God placed there will ultimately let us down, and the worship of these things may even lead to harming ourselves or others. Keller talks about identity, and how investing our identity in something leads us to despise people with a different identity (whether it is politics, race, or interestingly, religion).
( Read more... )Religion and the GospelKeller says that Christianity is not a religion. What he means is that Christianity says you're not saved by doing the right thing and earning merit with God. The nice thing about this chapter is that Keller speaks to people who've experienced what he calls Pharisaiac Christianity (recall that in the New Testament, the Pharisees are the self-righteous hypocrites, possibly because they were engaged in founding modern Judaism to the exclusion of Christians
at the time the gospels were written).
( Read more... )The ResurrectionKeller says that the Resurrection is pretty much the only explanation for the beginnings of Christianity. Drawing on N.T. Wright's work, he argues that people in the 1st century weren't simpletons who believed in any old nonsense, that the resurrection of the body of a single person was something neither Jews or Pagans believed could happen, that nothing else can account for the sudden change of the disciples from a frightened rabble into bold preachers.
Finally, we've found a chapter about evidence, but it's not evidence most of us are qualified to judge. Convincing people that the Resurrection happened is a popular apologetic technique among evangelicals, yet according to the Christians who
commented on the first part of this review, God doesn't require us to become experts in ancient literature. But how else can someone judge this evidence? We can look to other experts rather than becoming experts ourselves, I suppose, but they disagree, so I don't think the evidence can be as clear cut as Keller says.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
gjm11 tells a parable which points out the problems with Keller's argument which are apparent even to non-experts.
And the restI'm afraid I got bored at this point. The rest of the book is an explanation of orthodox Christian doctrines without much evidence in, er, evidence, followed by an altar call. So, Jesus's death on the Cross is necessary for forgiveness because we all recognise that forgiveness costs the forgiver; the Trinity makes the statement that God is love meaningful, and never mind that the Bible is equivocal on it and it's impossible to talk about without committing some heresy or other. Finally, if you want to know more, why not go to church?
Summing upThe second half of the book is mostly a statement of what Keller considers Christianity
is, without much evidence that it's
true. Elsewhere,
robhu said that he thought that, though rational arguments have a role, the main way that people come to Christianity was to hear the good news about Jesus (what Christians call the "gospel") and respond to it, so that his main evangelistic method as a Christian was to
present the gospel.
The
gospel as evangelicals understand it is composed of factual claims. A bare presentation of the gospel (which is quite similar to Keller's book, since it turns out that he spends most of the second half of his book saying what Christianity is) asks people to accept those factual claims based not on good evidence, but on an inner conviction, a feeling that the claims are right. To the extent that someone does this, they've abandoned even the everyday rationality which we use to judge other claims (that Daz washes whiter, or that the used car had one careful owner). Clearly this works on some people (including me, at one point), but I suspect it's because rationality is a discipline that most people don't learn, or even see the value of applying to religion. As far as I'm concerned, Keller fails to offer good reasons for God.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
comments.
comments.
comments.
comments.
comments.
comments.
comments.
comments.
