Tim Keller's new book is a thoughtful and kindly answer to that question. It shouldn't be confused with a theological treatise on ¨the varieties of the Christian experience,¨ as a recent reviewer seems to expect. Nor can Keller go into much depth in any of the topics he covers -- which include both leading objections to Christian faith (part I) and his own best reasons for believing (part II). What Keller offers is an intelligent, informed, but also simple and personal (you feel engaged in a conversation here) argument for Christian faith in the context of popular dismissals.It's hard to avoid comparing the book with C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. (Especially since Keller quotes Lewis so often, to some peoples' ire.) Keller is trying to do what Lewis did for an earlier generation: explain the Christian faith in a genial, informed, non-sectarian mode. As a Presbyterian pastor (of the very denomination Dawkins ignorantly vilifies in The God Delusion, BTW), Keller is more tied to a particular form of Christianity. The previous reviewer to the contrary, I think he does a fairly good job of transcending those limits. One thing Keller does that Lewis did not do, is quote a lot of research. (Lewis' book was informed by deep scholarship, but the study formed a sort of endoskeleton to his argument, whereas Keller's sources are visible on the outside -- good for further study, if you have questions. I especially recommend Lewis himself, Wright, Plantinga, and Stark, all whom he cites frequently -- and plan to look up some of the other books he mentions myself!) One reviewer complains that Keller tells skeptics that they ¨must¨ doubt their doubts. But isn't that just asking them to be consistent, and to examine life even more thoroughly? The complaint that Keller thinks Christianity is ¨exclusively¨ right is not entirely fair. Keller expresses respect for other religions. Having written a couple books on Christianity and other religions myself (the most relevant being Jesus and the Religions of Man), I agree that Keller could have addressed this topic more thoughtfully. Another reviewer makes an even more fundamental objection to Keller's approach: ¨The very premise of the book is flawed, because reason and faith have nothing to do with each other. Faith . . . is, fundamentally, to believe something to be true without having or needing a verifiable reason.¨This is entirely mistaken. It's a pity Keller doesn't address this question a bit, because in my experience it's the single most common misconception about the Christian faith. In fact, that has almost NEVER been what Christians have meant by ¨faith.¨ (See the second chapter of my The Truth Behind the New Atheism, ¨Have Christians lost their minds?¨ for an explanation and rebuttal. That might also be a good book for the reviewer who thinks Keller fails to respond to the allegedly ¨scrupulous¨ arguments of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris well.) Some critics also seem disappointed that Keller offers ¨clues¨ to God, rather than ¨proof¨ of some sort. But as Pascal said, God gives enough light for those willing to believe, leaving some obscurity for those of ¨contrary disposition.¨ Keller is I think being realistic; between certainty of a positivist kind, and ¨blind faith,¨ there is a vast middle ground of contested facts on which the light of reason and evidence can shine and help us find our way. On July 7th, 2008, 56 five-star reviews of Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism could be read at amazon.com. Almost all of these reviews had been written by Christians who had agreed with most of what Keller, pastor of New York City's Redeemer Presbyterian Church, had written. Despite its aim, Keller's book (like many apologetic works before it) seems more likely to reinforce what some Christians already believe than to convert true skeptics to Christianity. Moreover, if the experience of this reviewer is at all indicative, then many Christian readers who occupy a theological house other than that of conservative evangelicalism will be dissatisfied with Keller's work for a number of reasons.These reasons begin with the book's title, whose promise goes unfulfilled. The book's first part does not give reasons for God at all (much less "The Reason"); instead, it gives defenses of garden-variety evangelicalism in the form of responses to assertions and questions that Keller has commonly heard during his time as a pastor. Reasons for God and defenses of Christianity are not the same thing. The book's second part begins with a chapter titled, "The Clues of God"--which is as close as Keller comes to giving reasons for God.Keller begins his book with a diagnosis: "There is a 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." He then suggests a third way--namely, that both skeptics (liberals?) and believers (conservatives?) reconsider doubt. "Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts," he writes. Skeptics "must doubt [their] doubts." While Keller seems to be seeking moderation (he hopes for "civility in a pluralistic society," for example), it is doubtful that many true skeptics will take kindly to him telling them what they "must" do three times in four paragraphs. More disappointing, though, is the fact that--after inviting his readers to doubt--Keller expresses few if any doubts of his own about any traditional doctrines (not even about hell).Certainly, he does not doubt that Christianity is exclusively "right." In his first chapter, Keller observes: "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 does not seek to deny Christianity's exclusivity; rather, he points out the inconsistency--even hypocrisy--of persons who complain about this exclusivity. While this critique is fair, Keller confuses the act of making a claim (which is exclusive) and the content of a claim (which may be more or less exclusive or inclusive).More importantly, the problem of exclusivity--which Keller concedes often leads to violence--remains (though now it belongs to everyone). Keller's solution? The "exclusive belief system" of Christianity, which promotes peacemaking because it has at its "very heart...a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness." In this section, Keller boldly lifts up the example of the early church--a church that took the teaching and example of Jesus so seriously that it practiced non-violence even in the face of persecution. Unfortunately, Keller continues: "[W]ho can deny that the force of Christians' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?"About which Christians does Keller write? Is a view of Jesus as peacemaker a "fundamental" conviction of most Christians today? It is held by Anabaptists, and by some Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants. Is it held by many conservative evangelicals? Has recent history not shown that many of these Christians are at least as likely to bless their nation's war-making?These questions point to another reason for dissatisfaction with Keller's book--his tendency to write as if there is only one understanding of the Christian faith (a notable exception to this tendency is found in the book's "Intermission"). For example, Keller asserts, "In the Christian understanding, Jesus does not tell us how to live so we can merit salvation." Though an Anabaptist might write something similar, he would almost certainly stress that Jesus nonetheless does teach us how to live. This emphasis is not offered by Keller. Keller's theological house has not stressed the importance of discipleship as much as Anabaptists have.Keller's tendency to overlook the fact that pluralism is not only in the world but also in the church surfaces again in the next chapter (whose focus is on the problem of evil--an issue that begs for more than a chapter treatment). Keller points readers who struggle to reconcile belief in God with the existence of great suffering to the cross. On the cross, explains Keller, God in Christ has shown solidarity with us by suffering with us. This pastoral move is perhaps the best response anyone can give to this perennial question. Still, it is in making this move that Keller again fails to recognize the diversity of Christian thought, writing, "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." Besides its sloppy thinking (the suffering of Jesus on the cross was not "endless"), this claim is arguably untrue, as the substitutionary theory of the atonement was not developed until the end of the eleventh century (by Anselm--see Gustaf Aulen's book, Christus Victor).One other note: C.S. Lewis makes his first appearance here--the first of many appearances. (It would not be unfair to call Lewis Keller's primary source, as he makes more direct use of this writer's work than he does of Scripture.) Lewis, who was a literature professor, has for decades been the favorite theologian of conservative evangelical Christians. By his heavy reliance on Lewis, Keller serves readers little more than warmed-over evangelicalism. Meanwhile, heavyweight theologians are brought into the conversation only rarely.I suppose if you already have "The Truth" in your back pocket, it wouldn't hurt to read this book. I have seventeen pages of gripes against this book, but I'll try to keep this short. The very premise of the book is flawed, because reason and faith have nothing to do with each other. Faith - no matter what idiosyncratic ideas we use to define it - is, fundamentally, to believe something to be true without having or needing a verifiable reason. Religious faith is not based simply on whether something has been or can be proven by empirical means; having faith means that proof or the lack thereof has no bearing on the validity of the belief itself. Yes, you can find reason for a belief in a Christian god, but your belief is not contingent on reason, but rather on faith - what is doctrinally considered a higher virtue. Faith trumps all. Reason doesn't support faith any more than wheels make a plane fly(The Wright brothers made bicycles and indeed used wheels to get their planes off the ground, but they didn't make history with landing gear, as that was apparently beside the point). The biggest error Keller makes is assuming that beliefs based on faith are on a level playing field with beliefs based on reason. There is a very important distinction between the two, but Keller glazes over it under the assumption that a majority of his readers won't notice. Unfortunately, it's probably a safe assumption. Secondly, Keller poses counterarguments against several atheist authors (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris) that are dubious in that, having actually read books by these authors, it leaves me wondering if Keller bothered reading any of their material. He offers simplistic, uninformed rebuttals to the scrupulous arguments posed by these authors, which leads me to think he probably just cherry-picked a few quotes for his own purposes. If you really want to learn something about skepticism and reason, read books by the authors Keller attempts to rebuff; as long as you're willing to read "The Reason for Faith" to satisfy your intellect, why not read something that's actually is intellectually satisfying. If Keller doesn't completely fail at this objective, one can easily see that he's not the best at it, so why waste your time. It's also a bit annoying how Keller seems to refer to C.S Lewis a little too often, apparently valuing the clever wit of a popular Christian writer over real, substantive arguments. The problem, of course, is not with C.S Lewis, but with Timothy Keller's habit of cherry-picking quotes here and there, turning brilliance into mere novelty. The Rev. Tim Keller offers up a number of "war horse" arguments for his particular belief system, namely, a fairly standard variety of Christianity, and attempts to deliver them in an apparently even-handed, apparently tolerant fashion. Unfortunately, he seems to be what is known in the 'trade' as a 'True Believer', and so has a hard time actually finding the opposing views to be credible. His chapters all start off with quotes from persons who he represents as 'skeptics' of one sort or another, none of whom seem to be the 'cream of the crop', as their views often lack much depth, or else are what I would consider narrow quibbles with some particular contention about God and/or Christ and/or Bible stories. It's possible that these are all people who have attended his church, or maybe he has met, personally, in the course of his work as preacher. So, maybe it is less than fair to expect these people to have deep, analytical, robust, and difficult challenges to the tenets of Christianity. Rather, the contrary views expressed seem to be the kind of run-of-the-mill, garden variety doubts that most Christians have probably considered at one time or another, in the course of their church-going lives. You're not going to find the kind of hardened skepticism exemplified by Dawkins or Harris, and hence, you are not going to find adequate refutations of such views, either--if that is what you were hoping for.I imagine that a lot of Bible-believing Christians will find Keller's arguments to be more arrows in their quivers, when it comes time to assault the non-believers with their prosyletizations. Unfortunately for them, the Atheists they aim for are likely to have already been through similar battles, and will have adequate defensive armor, stout enough to repel such dull, weakly-delivered barbs. It may be that a very few mild agnostics will succumb to such tactics, but I would think that such folk were mostly there, already.In any event, if you are a mildly logical, thoughtful skeptic, you will find these arguments quite easy to poke all kinds of holes in. On one page alone (p23), I was able to give 4 different analyses, each of which independently constituted a refutation of his claim that "Evil and Suffering isn't Evidence Against God", IMHO. I wrote him a letter to that effect around a week ago, but have yet to hear any counter argument. I presume I am not the sort of skeptic he would have started off a chapter by quoting. (Maybe he is getting a lot of this kind of mail? I hear the book is doing rather well on the sales front. More power to him! I'll assume that, one day, he'll get back to me. "First come, first serve" is fair, I suppose.)One last observation: Anyone who is interpreting the title in a literal way--that is, looking for an ontological explanation as to why God exists, in the first place (assuming He does exist, which isn't demonstrated in this book)--is just not looking in the right place. Tim Keller simply assumes God does exist, and tries to offer up reasons to believe. So much for truth in packaging! P.S. Yesterday, his staff people did respond to my criticism, and gave what I must admit were thoughtful and cogent rebuttals... Thoughtful and cogent, but still not totally convincing. However, they were very nice and polite. I appreciate their efforts. If somebody had to write this book, I'm glad it was Tim Keller. So many evangelicals who tackle this debate do so very condescendingly and without actually answering many of the questions posed by atheists, but rather by throwing out maxims and propositions. Now, I'm not opposed to maxims and propositions, but they have to be given within reason.I think this book should really serve as a primer for the discussion rather than a closing argument. In just over three hundred pages, Keller is only able to touch the tip of the iceberg concerning each argument both for and against faith in God. I would love to see many others pick up these subjects where Keller left off and continue the conversation.The best part of the book, in my opinion, was the first half, where Keller tackles various objections to the Christian faith. I have noticed throughout my life that the most volatile and ungracious debaters are often not on the Christian side. While atheists would claim to be more gracious and reasonable, there seems to be a blind arrogance to many atheist arguments. I'm glad Keller addressed that the way that he did. I also personally find it interesting that many atheists go out of their way to disprove something they don't believe in. They spend their time fighting what is, in their mind, nonexistent. I find the fact that so many atheists are haunted by even the notion of God to be fascinating.All in all, a very good read, but I wouldn't treat it as the final word.
|
adam-recommended.com - The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism - Comparison Shopping and Read Reviews Index | Sitemap
