Belief In An Age of Skepticism Timothy Keller
Finished Reading: 03.2009
This book explores the most common reasons why people do not believe in God. While not attempting to prove that God exists through reason alone, Keller shows that most logical arguments against God don't actually work if we follow through with them, fully working out the logic. The skeptic usually goes into pondering the existence of God, not wanting there to be a God, and so he can reason anything against it. The author wants us to consider faith outside of science and what is provable, whether our skepticism is based on direct reasoning against God or ignorant doubts. This book is relevant to Christians because it is good to ask hard questions about what we believe, as we should not choose our beliefs and then not think upon them again.
Split into two sections, the book begins with seven chapters describing common claims against Christianity, and ends with seven chapters of claims for the truth of God. Following are my comments on some of the ideas presented.
There is a new kind of young Christian emerging particularly in cities, with whom I identify. This type of Christian does not feel a strong affiliation with a traditional mainline denomination, perhaps one reason being that he does not view the world in as black and white a fashion as his parents and grandparents traditionally did, separating their Christian world from the rest of the world, creating a Christian bubble. This type of Christian cares about the world as the one world it is, inhabited with different kinds of people; not two separate worlds in which one we cling to and one we shun. Keller recalls, when first struggling to grasp in his own life, that, "(t)he people most passionate about social justice were moral relativists, while the morally upright didn't seem to care about the oppression going on all over the world (xii). The Christianity he was presented didn't click with him.
The new, fast-spreading multi ethnic orthodox Christianity in the cities is much more concerned about the poor and social justice than Republicans have been, and at the same time much more concerned about upholding classic Christian moral and sexual ethics than Democrats have been (xx)." These Christians don't fit in the traditional molds that have been carved out of the last century and are looking for something new.
Keller makes important points that I agree with, such as:
"Most people in our culture believe that, if there is a God, we can relate to him and go to heaven through leading a good life....Christianity teaches the very opposite....Jesus does not tell us how to live so we can merit salvation. Rather, he comes to forgive and save us through his life and death in our place. God's grace does not come to people who morally outperform others, but to those who admit their failure to perform and acknowledge their need for a Savior (19)."
"If you have known many wise, loving, kind, and insightful Christians over the years, and if you have seen churches that are devout in belief yet civic-minded and generous, you will find the intellectual case for Christianity much more plausible. If, on the other hand, the preponderance of your experience is with nominal Christians (who bear the name but don't practice it) or with self-righteous fanatics, then the arguments for Christianity will have to be extremely strong for you to concede that they have any cogency at all (52)."
"It is often the case that people whose lives have been harder and who are 'lower on the character scale' are more likely to recognize their need for God and turn to Christianity (54)."
"In short, hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity (78). All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from himself... (C.S.) Lewis writes: ...All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn't be Hell (79)."
"Imagine two people arguing over the nature of a cookie. Jack thinks the cookie is poison, and Jill thinks it is not. Jack thinks Jill's mistaken view of the cookie will send her to the hospital or worse. Jill thinks Jack's mistaken view of the cookie will keep him from having a fine desert. Is Jack more narrow-minded than Jill just because he thinks the consequences of her mistake are more dire? I don't believe anyone would think so. Christians, therefore, aren't more narrow minded because they think wrong thinking and behaviour have eternal effects (81)."
"If there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is 'moral' and another 'immoral' but only 'I like this.'... if there is no God, then all moral statements are arbitrary, all moral valuations are subjective and internal, and there can be no external moral standard by which a person's feelings and values are judged (153-4). If you believe human rights are a reality, then it makes much more sense that God exists than that he does not. If you insist on a secular view of the world and yet you continue to pronounce some things right and some things wrong, then I hope you see the deep disharmony between the world your intellect has devised and the real world (and God) that your heart knows exists (156)."
"If you don't live for Jesus, you will live for something else. If you live for career and you don't do well, you will feel like a failure. If you live for your children and they don't turn out all right you could be absolutely in torment because you feel worthless as a person. If Jesus is your center and Lord and you fail him, he will forgive you. (172)."
No comments:
Post a Comment