Big Think

Musycks on March 1, 2009, 9:21 PM

To Big T editors everywhere.

Guys, I’ve been an avid user of your site since last May… this is a good example of why expert posts in the way they are done is problematical. Here Mr Keller is saying the reason for god is because of what he sees around, being it makes more sense for him to believe than not. But no details.
I don’t expect him to condense his book in 2 minutes, but nothing… no argument from design, no first cause, nothing!
Clicking on an idea that is titled ‘The Reason for God’ it’s not unreasonable to expect it’s outlined to some extent. Now I can’t ask Tim what he means as I’ve yet to see an expert reply to a plebian like me.

please don’t swamp us with multiple posts from people that won’t debate with details thin on the ground.
cheers,
Michael Roberts

Brendon Desrochers on April 17, 2009, 12:37 PM

Musycks,

I’ll start with more of a semantical response, but you’ll notice that “The” is capitalized in the headline of this “idea” and not in other Tim Keller headlines. That’s because “The Reason for God” refers to Keller’s book and not simply to the fact that he’s going to give the reason why he thinks God exists in a soundbite.

I’ve read his book, and while most vehement atheists do not find it entirely convincing, it is generally compelling, and it’s not intended to be a complete tome to shoot down the Dawkinses and Hitchenses of the world. Each of Keller’s chapters could be expanded into its own book, so it’s hard to expect him to be complete in his explanation of each idea in even one chapter, and, of course, it’s even more difficult to expect him to give an explanation that would address every concern of an skeptic in a 2-minute clip.

If you do read his book, you’ll notice that he has a couple of main theories/themes —

1) All perspectives on the world and how the world should be are, to the extent that they’re not empirically provable, faith-based positions. Therefore, it’s not just the “religious” or “faithful” who make assumptions and judgments about the world based on faith but indeed everyone. He expands on this idea often in the book.

2) (And this is more of an argument for Christianity rather than simply for God.) Keller claims that, based on the scholarship of folks like N.T. Wright and Richard Baukham, the New Testament is trustworthy as a set of historical documents in part because of how those books were first recorded and in part because those scholars indicate that the explanation of Jesus’ life, death, after-death/resurrection in the gospels makes more sense (based on the scholarship, writing, culture of the time) than any other explanation for those events. He’s not saying that it’s provable, but he is saying that the gospels and the scholarship can get you to the point where it’s not hard to determine that it’s very possible and indeed more likely than any alternative explanation. And, if it is true — that Jesus rose from the dead — then he is who he says he is (God) and we must respond to him from there.

Allow me to caution you before you read — if you end up reading it, and I think it’s worthwhile — that Keller is not primarily trying to rebut or refute the arguments of the popular atheist scholars/writers of this time. He ends up doing that to some extent and in some places, but Keller’s primary goal is to respond to problems with faith/God/Christianity that he’s encountered as a pastor at a church in New York City for the last 20 years.

Thanks for reading. I hope I didn’t misrepresent any of Dr. Keller’s points.