Product Description

The End of Faith. The God Delusion. God Is Not Great. Letter to a Christian Nation. Bestseller lists are filled with doubters. But what happens when you actually doubt your doubts? Although a vocal minority continues to attack the Christian faith, for most Americans, faith is a large part of their lives: 86 percent of Americans refer to themselves as religious, and 75 percent of all Americans consider themselves Christians. So how should they respond to these passionate, learned, and persuasive books that promote science and secularism over religion and faith? For years, Tim Keller has compiled a list of the most frequently voiced doubts skeptics bring to his Manhattan church. And in The Reason for God, he single-handedly dismantles each of them. Written with atheists, agnostics, and skeptics in mind, Keller also provides an intelligent platform on which true believers can stand their ground when bombarded by the backlash. The Reason for God challenges such ideology at its core and points to the true path and purpose of Christianity. Why is there suffering in the world? How could a loving God send people to Hell? Why isnt Christianity more inclusive? Shouldnt the Christian God be a god of love? How can one religion be right and the rest wrong? Why have so many wars been fought in the name of God? These are just a few of the questions even ardent believers wrestle with today. In this book, Tim Keller uses literature, philosophy, real-life conversations and reasoning, and even pop culture to explain how faith in a Christian God is a soundly rational belief, held by thoughtful people of intellectual integrity with a deep compassion for those who truly want to know the truth.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #124864 in Books
• Published on: 2007
• Binding: Hardcover
• 293 pages

Customer Reviews

What you are looking for
If you are looking for a book that will clearly explain what the Christian faith really is, this is the book for you. If you are looking for a book to give to a friend who wants to know more about the Christian faith, this is the book for you. In part one of his book Tim Keller sensitively, winsomely and lucidly answers the post Christian culture's most difficult questions about and even it's harshest criticisms of Christianity. In part two Keller systematically explains the basic tenets of the historic Christian faith and he does so with a friendly, conversational ease. Even if they are not convinced to accept Keller's reasonings, in the end most readers will gain a new appreciation for why contemporary man would still seek refuge in Christ.

Readable Work from a Thoughtful Author
Sometimes I find an author who makes strong apologetic points, and sometimes I find an author whom I'd really like to meet in person. Sometimes, as here, I find both.

Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism is a highly readable defense of the main doctrines of the Christian faith. It is written as a kind of personal letter from one post-modern person to another.

In the introduction, he sets forth his key thesis, which is that we all believe something. He states, "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 so solid as they first appeared." (1).

In Part I, The Leap of Doubt, Keller addresses the following objections to Christianity: 1. There can't be just one true religion, 2. How could a good God allow suffering?, 3. Christianity is a straitjacket, 4. The Church is responsible for so much injustice, 5. How can a loving God send people to Hell?, 6. Science has disproved Christianity, and 7. You can't take the Bible literally.

On suffering, he notes, "With time and perspective most of us can see good reasons for at least some of the tragedy and pain that occurs in life. Why couldn't it be possible that, from God's vantage point, there are good reasons for all of them?" (2)

Part II, The Reasons for Faith, Keller discusses, 1. The clues of God, 2. The knowledge of God, 3. The problem of sin, 4. Religion and the Gospel, 5. The (true) story of the Cross, 6. The reality of the Resurrection, and 7. The dance of God.

While Keller is generally accommodating and respectful in his tone to skeptics, he also makes several blunt statements such as, for example, "I think people in our culture know unavoidably that there is a God, but they are repressing what they know." (3).

He also explains why the Resurrection is so significant: "If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead." (4)

The work covers many topics and, for this reason, it does not present a comprehensive discussion of all of them. However, it would not be fair to demanded this of any single volume, especially one of this size. In any event, Keller makes many important and interesting points on each of the topics he addresses.

Also, although I am sure that Mr. Keller is a man of deep personal commitment and faithfulness to God, I do not think the chapter on sin says enough about the struggle against sin and for holiness. For these important topics, an Orthodox Christian will have to turn to the rich heritage of the Fathers.

Overall, I think this work is incredibly powerful and valuable for the post-modern believer and skeptic alike. It should be read (at least twice) by anyone interested in the issues and questions that face post-modern people.
___________________
(1) p. xviii
(2) p. 25
(2) p. 146
(3) p. 202

No Reason at all
The book's title implies that the author was explicating "the" reason for a belief in God. It is more a commentary on selected arguments against the existence of God rather than explaining what the reason is to believe in God. Neither does he explain what God is in the conception of Christians. He seeks to justify his approach with this statement in his Introduction: "The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternative 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?" The first part of that statement is true if one is comparing two beliefs. Keller did not appreciate the important difference between believing in God and not believing in God. The second part, "how do you know your belief is true?" is rightly asked of those who profess a belief in God. Those who do not can justifiably say that there are no reasons for him to believe. The burden of proof lies with the theist. The non-believer need not ask himself why he has no reasons to believe. There just aren't any persuasive and valid reasons. There is one other preliminary and general point to be made about the book. Keller sets out various arguments that he thinks are arguments against the existence of God and then he sets out to refute those arguments. First, in any intellectual discourse and writing, one would set out the strongest opposing arguments to refute, not, as Keller does, set out the weakest ones. Accordingly, in this review I will, as far as possible within the constraints of time and space, set out the stronger versions of the arguments (referred to by Keller) for the purpose of refuting them. Secondly, Keller did not lay out the correct representation of many of the opposing arguments that he criticizes. He even rebuffs non-arguments. For instance, he cited propositions from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and tells us why those propositions were wrong or misleading. Refuting a work of fiction is not an intellectual exercise. Keller also provided propaganda material in the Introduction in an effort to show how religion brightens one's life. An intellectual in discourse would avoid citing subjective instances especially when there are countless subjective ones that go against his. Hence, his story about Jeffery the New York musician who became jealous of his Christian friends' "joy and hope for the future" led him to embrace the Christian faith can be countered by stories of others (this reviewer included) who found not just joy and hope but freedom and liberation in discarding belief in the supernatural.

In chapter one, Keller defends the Christian's reliance on doctrine. He criticizes those who do not think that doctrines are important and emphasizes his point by declaring that "Ironically, the insistence that doctrines do not matter is really a doctrine itself." This was a technique that Keller uses throughout his book. He drags opposing views to the same indefensible position that Christian doctrines are grounded and then claimed that they are in the same boat, therefore, they cannot be valid. That is a poor argument. He went on to say that, "[the opponent of Christian doctrines] holds a specific view of God, which is touted as superior [to] and more enlightened than the beliefs of most religions. So the opponents of this view do the very thing they forbid in others." On the contrary, that is what the Christian does - to them, Jesus is the only way. It will wrong for anyone to adopt this view without proof or at the least, a valid argument. In that sense, Keller's criticism, quoted above, does not indict the one who inquires after proof of God; it indicts the Christian himself.

Keller says that the "noted religion scholar John Hicks has written that once you become aware that there are many other equally intelligent and good people in the world who hold different beliefs from you and that you will not be able to convince them otherwise, then it is arrogant of you to try to convert them or hold your view to be the superior truth." He then says that "Once again there is an inherent contradiction. Most people in the world don't hold to John Hick's view that all religions are equally valid, and many of them are equally good and intelligent as he is, and unlikely to change their views. That would make the statement ` all religious claims to have a better view of things are arrogant and wrong' to be, on its own terms, arrogant and wrong." First, intellectual arguments must be based on facts. There is no support at all for Keller's opinion that "Most people in the world don't hold to John Hick's view that all religions are equally valid." Many hold that no religion is valid. Secondly, rational and intellectual arguments are normative and not number dependent. Thirdly, there are clearly major religions that do not profess to be "better" than others. Hinduism is an example. Would Keller then concede that Hinduism is not arrogant while Christianity (which holds that view) is? Fourthly, the intellectual argument is not concerned so much with whether Christianity is arrogant or not (although any religion that claims without proof that it is the only way - as Christianity does - is manifestly arrogant). The stronger argument from the existence of so many other religions as well as the fact that the three Mosaic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham, reveal a doctrinal flaw that cannot be explained. The result of the latter is that it appears that the God of Abraham tells his "chosen people", the Jews and the Muslims, that Jesus is not the Messiah. He tells Christians that Jesus was the Messiah - and God himself. How would any of them justify the claim that his ideation of Abraham's God is the true version?

In chapter two Keller addresses the question "How Could a Good God allow Suffering?" He began with a criticism of J L Mackie's case against God in (Mackie's) "The Miracle of Theism". He paraphrased Mackie thus: "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." Keller then wrote, "Tucked away within the assertion that the world is filled with pointless evil is a hidden premise, namely that if evil appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless." First of all, Does Keller think that the premise "if God appears real to me then he must be real" a more overt and open statement? But, getting more to the point, most evils are pointless, although one might say that to steer a runaway bus into a man is not a pointless evil if it meant saving the lives of a group of others on the other side of the street. God, however, has no explanation for any of the evils in the world. When Keller writes, "Just because you can't see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn't mean that there can't be one." He is conflating two premises. It is fair to say that if you do not know what my reason was for doing an act, it doesn't mean that I had none. But I, unlike God, exist. The criticism that a good God would not allow evil is an argument to disprove the existence of God. So until God is proven to exist, Keller cannot claim that God has reasons we do not know of. Until God is proven to exist, Keller is promoting the notion that what can't be proved or imagined should be believed rather than disbelieved. Did he think that makes any sense at all? Did he not realize that his refutation of Mackie was a circular argument? - Probably not since he went on making many more circular arguments in this book. He then used the following analogy to fortify his point. I will show that either Keller was utterly ignorant of the falsity of the analogy or he was being disingenuous (or maybe even dishonest), but first, this was what Keller wrote: "If you look into your kennel for a St Bernard, and you don't see one, it is reasonable to assume that there is no St Bernard in your kennel. But if you look into your kennel for a "no-see-um" ((an extremely small insect with a bite out of proportion to its size) and you don't see any it is not reasonable to assume they aren't there." Do we know why Keller placed the definition of a `no-see-um' in parenthesis? There is no such thing as a `no-see-um'. So unless he invents the animal, he cannot say that if we look and do not see it, that doesn't mean it wasn't there! Did he invent God too? He must otherwise his argument cannot hold.

That was just the third page of chapter 2. I think I have made my point. There won't be space here for me to set out the flaws in the rest of the book.