The Reason for God
I just finished Timothy Keller’s book, The Reason for God. It was amazing! I give it a 5 out of 5. I would compare it to a modern day Mere Christianity. In the first half of the book, Keller addresses the most dominant reasons people currently have for not believing in God and explains why they don’t add up. Then, in the second half he gives different reasons why believing in God makes the most sense logically. Too often, people think you must choose faith over logic/reason if you want to believe in God. Keller explains how absurd this notion really is. Faith is involved in atheism and religion alike. This is a well articulated book that explains the Biblical view of Jesus and challenges people to not only doubt, but to push through the doubt and find the truth at the end of it.
“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 probing questions of a smart skeptic. A person’s faith can collapse almost overnight if she has failed over the years to listen patiently to her own doubts, which should only be discarded after long reflection.”
This is the personal blog of Jeremy Jernigan. Husband, father, teaching pastor, and student of truth.
I recently bought this book for Kristen and when she is done reading it I will begin. Glad to know it will be worth it.
Hey Jeremy,
Sounds like a great book, I will definitely pick it up once I’m not swamped with reading for school.
Man, someone else was telling me about that book. I need to get it.
Never heard of that one. I might have to check it out.
Jeremy, I am sorry I never post on here, but be assured I read your blog often! I just finished this book about a week ago and I have to agree with you. It is probably one of the best books (in this genre) I’ve ever read. Good call on the modern Mere Christianity comment. I had not thought of it that way yet. What was your favorite chapter?
Stephen – good to hear from you old friend!
I thought the strongest single argument for God came from chapter nine: The Knowledge of God. This is where he argues that if we all just arrived accidentally (big bang), and then adapted from there through millions of years (evolution), without any interaction from God, then there is no explanation as to why moral obligation exists. Technically, if it is only survival of the fittest, then we should look at others as competition to be overpowered. So why is it that almost universally people have a set of values as to how you should treat other people? How can Human Rights exist apart from a belief in God?
Here is a review of this book I saw on Amazon. How would you answer this Jeremy?
“As an atheist, I looked forward to reading this book to find what an intellectual and sophisticated believer would say to a skeptic. Keller leads with a convincing presentation of both skeptical and dogmatic viewpoints, and leads the reader to believe that he will “explode” the case for atheism and otherwise answer skepticism with convincing and highly reasoned arguments. However, for all his good writing and insistent good will, the intellectual tenor of this book is as hackneyed as they come- as classic an apologia as one might want to find from the last decade or the last century. His coups de grace generally invoke C. S. Lewis, whose chestnuts of apology hardly break new intellectual ground.
On the problem of evil, he concludes: “Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean that can’t be one.” This is of course the old panglossian argument that all is for the good, at least by the mysterious ways of god. The problem is that scripture and religious believers have very definite ideas about what is just and unjust, to the point of a license to kill (the just war, not to mention the inquisition). So this cognitive humility foisted on the skeptic suddenly evaporates when the issue is, say, abortion, or the divinity of Jesus. The fact is that humans have an inborn and cultivated sense of morals, which is what they use to assess whether a religion is beneficial, not the other way around. Indeed, Keller then turns around to give secular reasons (the liberation of women) why Christianity was at its origin was more moral than its surrounding community. It is our subjective and evolving moral sense that is the criterion, not words on a page, let alone words from the bronze age.
On the problem of multiple religions, Keller presents an equally deficient and hackneyed solution. Quoting Alvin Plantinga in answer to the proposition that a Christian would in all probability be Muslim if raised in a Muslim society, he notes: “… If the pluralist had been born in Morocco he probably wouldn’t be a pluralist. Does it follow that … his pluralist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process?”. The problem with this formulation is that it ignores the reasoning at issue. The “leap of faith” that is required to take on religious belief is notoriously non-intellectual (as Keller admits in his introduction as being the “second barrier” to his personal faith, which was overcome with a personal experience of god’s presence). This leap is socially conditioned, as is the expression of religious emotions generally. Thus the religious person takes on the religious forms she was born into with few exceptions. On the other hand, the skeptical reasoning process applies equally to all cultural settings, and results in a dismissal of each of the religious forms, resulting in a logically consistent and universal viewpoint rather than a parochially artistic product. There is no harm in valuing the many expressions of religious sentiment that humanity has generated over the millennia, but we should not mistake those expressions for intellect.
Ultimately, you should read this book if you want uplifting stories of how urban, hip (yet gullible) people joined the Redeemer church. But do not read this book if you are looking for deep intellectual discussions of skepticism and why one might honestly reason one’s way to Christianity.”
I must say it’s good to see you guys are still trying to get under each other’s skin. I miss the good ol’ loft days. Landon, if I was in this argument I would probably tell him that despite his attempt to display his depth of insight, he forgot to answer the question at hand. I would like to hear his thoughts on how morals or a love of humanity began. To his argument on the problem of evil, he misses the point once again, which is not that everything turns out well, but that our understanding of why things happen is miniscule in comparison to the providence of God. If he still picked a fight after that I would walk away and read Romans 1 again to remind myself of God’s grace in my life; knowing I’d be just like the skeptic without it.
Landon – my response to the critique is simple. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions and I disagree with his.
Oh the Loft Days Stephen. We still need to compile all of the “notes” for the book. I’m thinking about filling up one March Madness Bracket with the flip of a penny again this year.
I agree with you Jeremy (and you Stephen). I just wonder how much of an impact a book like this has on people who truly do not believe. So often I feel like the stuff I read impacts me, but not sure how it impacts those who don’t have a shred of belief in them. Perhaps the point is to change the lives of believers and hope that their transformed life leads to change in others….
Yet another book I need to pick up. You cost me money bro.