The Reason For God - Chapter Two Review

I must say, I enjoyed Chapter two more than Chapter One. I appreciate the attempt to answer a more difficult argument. The title of Chapter two is, "How Could A Good God Allow Suffering?"
Keller begins by using the Tsunami of 2004 as an example of a g0d preventable tragedy. He also paraphrases Epicurus' problem, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

The first section proposes that Evil and Suffering Isn't Evidence Against God.
His basic support for this premise is the "mysterious ways" argument. We may not be able to see why these things happen, but g0d must have a plan. I view this as a cop out, a brilliant one, but a cop-out nonetheless. He says it well, but he is still saying, "my g0d and his existence is immune to all logical arguments." The story used to example this is that of Joseph. Joseph has bad things happen, then good things happen after the bad things. If you're talking about an all powerful g0d, this g0d could create us with character, with all the things that we supposedly go through suffering to get. Ockham's razor seems to also weaken this line of thinking, but maybe I am just missing something obvious.

After that Keller postulates Evil and Suffering May be (if Anything) Evidence for God.
He defends this statement by using C.S. Lewis' argument, if there was not g0d, then we would not have a concept of good and evil. He also quotes Alvin Plantiga, saying basically the same thing. What happens if you can show that our concept of right and wrong evolved with us??
I think this is a weird form of the Ontological argument: "If I can conceive of evil, there must be a g0d to give me that perception". Suffering is a problem for the believer because I am accepting their presupposition that there is a g0d. When you take away that supposition, what happens for the skeptic is the ancient philosophical idea of "shit happens". I concede that this could lead to issue of where the skeptic might get their morality from. I just don't see how the skeptic would have to go with the assumption that, if I think something is evil, I must believe in a g0d. Does that not more point to fuzzy thinking in the skeptic, rather than any proof for the theist? Again, I could be missing a deeper point here, but still think this is a unresolved problem for a protestant Christian.

Keller rounds off the chapter by going into the suffering of Jesus, and because he was supposedly g0d, that means g0d shares in our suffering. I did not realize that the idea of g0d suffering was fairly new. Keller uses the idea of Christ suffering with us, the terrors of this world, to mean "the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater". This seems to me more of a day dream than any sort of reasonable belief. What makes him think this? The fact that people of all faiths keep promising a better world for their followers makes this highly suspect. It would be nice to think that everything will be set right, that the universe will end like a Disney movie. I just find it odd that Keller would use this argument in a book for skeptics. It does not really answer the criticism except by saying, "Trust me, this is all for the best." Reminds me of a Grumpy Old Men quote about wishing...
If you accept his beliefs, then this would probably work. He's not writing to the choir though. He's trying to answer skeptics, and so this seems an odd argument to include.

This is a tough topic for the believer to answer, especially in one chapter. Maybe if Keller had a whole book for this one topic he might be able to more fully explain his reasoning. Or maybe there just isn't an answer for 'if there's a g0d, why there is suffering'. I was recently reading the reverse of this argument, "The Evil God Challenge". I don't know if it's tenable, but it shows how much bigger this discussion could be.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - It is my understanding that in the Job era of thinking, g0d was responsible for any evil that happened. That the devil was just his 'agent'. The writers of the O.T. recognized that because g0d has final authority, g0d gets all the responsibility. Am I wrong in that understanding?

The Reason For God - Chapter One Review

The criticism of Christianity being refuted in chapter one is, "There Can't Be Just Be One True Religion." Keller better clarifies this position by stating, "To insist that one faith has a better grasp of the Truth than others is intolerant." He does concede that this works against peace in our world. Once a religion can claim sole truth, it is easy to 'stereotype and caricature other ones'. He also concedes that this will most likely lead to violence. Keller then proceeds to list out three common reactions to this problem.

First reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, outlaw religion.
I would agree with him this would never work, and is counterproductive. I would concede that maybe every society needs some sort of fairy tale or narrative to function. I think it's interesting that when Keller talks about the explosive growth of religion, he fails to point out that it's in predominantly poor and uneducated countries. The fact is that the U.S. is an anomaly among wealthy nations in its belief system. This has more to do with its history of anti intellectualism than any sort of benefit of religious belief. I wonder what he thinks of the evidence that religious belief tends to leave a society worse off.

Second reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, condemn religion.
He claims that condemning religion leads to the following statements:
"All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing". Who would say this! The fact that someone would raise this as an objection makes me despair about the type of skeptics who actually challenge Keller.
The next statement that condemning religion might lead to is, "Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth." He then uses the classic blind men feeling an elephant analogy to parable this stance. His reaction to this is, "How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed none of the religions have." PZ Myers has an excellent retort to this kind of thinking. It's long, so I have posted it at the bottom.
The statement to follow that is, "Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be 'truth'". He goes to use the classic argument against relativism. I don't really see how this defeats the relativism of religion. If you were taught something from a young age by everyone you trusted and loved, you would believe that. This is why there are always fights over what gets taught in school. Belief in Santa is relative, and not discoverable outside of it's cultural context. Once everyone stops believing in Santa, he's "dead". How is religion different? I don't care if he argues against relativism, I want to know how religion is not relative? I can see how math is not relative, everyone can discover its principles. The language around math may be a construct, but the principles remain the same. How does one discover non-relative religious principles? Are there any? This is making me feel like Keller would prefer to engage in 'straw-man' arguments.
That last statement that Keller says might result from condemning religion is, "It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it". I don't dispute that certain beliefs might have more validity than others, but something Keller asks is: why do the skeptics care what other people believe? He offers no answer, but I will. What others do with their beliefs affects my life. Notice I said what people do with their beliefs. Unlike the g0d depicted in much of the Bible, I don't believe in thought crime. A line of morality could be, 'What kind of society do you want to live in.' Then behaviours of others resulting from belief would matter. I would also say that evidence gives credence, or as Hitchens puts it, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." When you claim exclusivity, but yet can't show any evidence on how you are exclusive, why should we not consider that arrogant? In fact, why should you not be laughed at? Again, I feel as if he skipped over the meat of this issue and answered the easy critics.

Third reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, keep religion private.
He says that it's not possible, that everyone brings their beliefs and spirituality to the public sphere. Keller says everything is morally relative, unless people bring their belief in g0d around with them. He does a nice little straw man caricature of a 'anything goes' morality. The problem is, when believers make claims in the public realm, they bring a giant 'g0d' stamp: "I'm right because g0d says so!" He conveniently ignores that this is one of the reasons why religion and state mixture is deplorable. He also says we have to have religion so we know what kind of society to build. He touches on a post modern idea of dialogue and constructing a society, then completely misses the point. *sigh*

Of course his answer to the problem of exclusive religion claims is, "Christianity can save the World". These are his reasons why:
Biblical doctrine of people being created in the image of 'g0d' leads to respect for others. Other people will recognize Christians as 'good' because of Jesus' teachings.
The Christian gospel should make people feel humble in light of their 'salvation', and therefore treat others with respect.
Christians in the first two centuries were so nice, gave people more rights, in comparison with the culture around them.
He then proceeds to say that, "We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ, yet who can deny that the force of Christians' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?"
He just did skip lightly, and it annoyed me, though I suspect he tries to answer the injustices later in the book. As to his claims on how Christianity will save the world, there are natural explanations for all of them. Not really a whiff of anything supernatural in them. An example off the top of my head would be: if Christians were bad asses, persecuting people, in an empire with a big, well trained army, it is not a religion that will get off the ground. He seems to assume early Christianity was a cohesive belief system, which would imply he knows very little about the early church. Christianity has changed many times over, and it will continue to do so. I really enjoy how he calls Jesus' teachings good, but uses the classical argument later on that he was a bad moral teacher, which helps prove he was g0d.
To sum up, I would agree that there could be one true religion, but Keller in no way shows that it has to be Protestant Christianity. For me this book is off to a rough start. One too many straw men. I am also left with the feeling that there are tougher problems within this one chapter that Keller has chosen to ignore. I remember feeling annoyed at the weakness of the first chapter on my first run through the book, but I think it gets a little better.
Cheers,
Scott











Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.

Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. "It has a tentacle," he said. "I think we have found a giant squid!"

Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. "It's a wall," he said, "A big, bristly wall."

Curly, at the back, touched the tail. "It's nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail."

Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues."

The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.

"Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort," said Moe.

"Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod," said Larry.

Curly seems distressed. "It's a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children's story, I will defer on reporting the details."

Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire."

The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!

"I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It's prehensile! Amazing!", said Moe.

Larry presses his ear against the animal's flank. "I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It's very loud and large."

There is a squishy plop from the back end. "Oh, no," says Curly, "I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath."

"You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings," sneers Eagletosh, "While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life."

"No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either," says Moe.

"Philistine," says Eagletosh. "Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they aren't quantum."

The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.

Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.

Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.

Curly's experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of thebiome.

Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.

Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, theEagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian ? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn't he realize that he can't possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets ofwingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.

When that book was quickly followed by Moe's The Elephant Walks and Curly's Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant's wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuouswingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn't deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.

And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.

Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?

Mr Deity

After a year, Mr Deity has a new episode up, and it's the start of a new season. Some might not find it that funny, but I think it's hilarious.



The original can be found at http://mrdeity.com/s3ep1.html.
Cheers,
Scott

Intro to Review

I have finished Timothy Keller's book, and will now try to sum up each chapter individually and my reactions to it. He has his book split into two parts, the first part being a defence against the criticisms of Christianity. He endeavors to be ecumenical, but admits this extends only to the protestant form of the Christian faith. The second half of the book is more focused on the positive reasons for, rather than against, believing in protestant Christianity. This also being a summary, I might miss some things. If anyone has read the book and feels I missed something important, please comment.
My overall reaction to the book is, he has written a decent apologetic book. There is a bit of circular reasoning. When reading the notes as I went along, I noticed he quoted a quote, rather than the source, which sort of bugged me. Ultimately I think he falls short, but as I go through it again, I might change my mind.
As well, I think this is a never ending discussion. I recently had a discussion on this topic, which has me thinking the back and forth between atheism and theism is about power. This would put Christianity at a disadvantage, because it's supposed to be the release of power and not the quest for it. The debate between the two positions might also be a false dichotomy, but I am trying to figure out what that would mean.
Keller did call for continuing dialogue in his introduction, which I appreciated. If we shut off dialogue, we're all screwed.
Post on Chapter one to be up soon.
Cheers,
Scott

Blogging Through A Book

I am going to blog my way through Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. It was given to me by a friend over this last weekend.
A shallow and inaccurate analogy of my belief in god would be a Guitar Hero rock meter. The middle being totally Agnostic, the left being Agnostic Atheist and the right being Agnostic Christian. I think everyone is an Agnostic when it come to god, but the meter being which world view you subscribe to most in your everyday life. That could be wrong if you could prove belief in god was a priori and not a posteriori.
Anyways, I think where my 'meter' is at prompted the gift. I appreciate a gift, so intend to be diligent to the givers intent. I plan to read through the book, then re-read it, posting an entry after each chapter. This should help me understand what the author intended overall, and digest that before responding in a positive or negative manner.
Comments as I go through the book are more than welcome. I am off to read, should have the first post up in a day or two.
Cheers.

Let's oppress women and children, it's Biblical!

Just want to say, I was being extremely sarcastic in the title.
I am currently reading, "Quiverfull" by Katheryn Joyce. It is, as the title suggests, a look at the Quiverfull movement. The movement takes it's title from Psalm 127:3-5, which basically says having lots of kids is a blessing. If that was where the movement stopped, it might be OK, but it's not. There are so many scary problems with it, I am having trouble knowing where to start.

Being a man, I will start with how it views men. Men are walking hormones, with no self control. They must be in total authority over their family, or g0d will be angry and everyone will be punished. Here is a quote that helps make my point on the self control front,
"...Pearl recounts the complaint of a young man disgusted with his friend's wife for 'dressing so g0dless', that is wearing clothes that have aroused him. She was no 'little hidden treasure', as he'd have his own wife be, he wrote with disgust..."
This is unsurprisingly close to the Muslim view as well. Women have to cover up, dress modestly, because men can't control themselves. This is crap, if you believe thought crime is bad, then it's up to YOU to control yourself. If women walked around naked, the man is still responsible. Jesus said pluck your own eye out. Shifting this to the women, saying, "look, they made me sin because I can see side boob" is reprehensible. Grow up, realize if you have a problem with how women dress, it's YOUR problem. There is no difference between saying how a women is dressed caused you to sin, and saying how a women is dressed caused you to rape her. It's bullshit and needs to called bullshit. If anyone ever trots out that argument, roll up a newspaper, hit them on the nose, and firmly say, "NO!".
Men are also so out of control, that if women don't always feel up for sex, don't behave like the man's personal servant, then it's the women's fault if he cheats or beats her. This is another example of shifting blame, "I am not in control of what I do, it's all your fault."
Of course the men in this movement can justify this with scripture, but the slave traders also justified their actions in the same way. The Bible is not always the best source for personal ethics. Though I do see the teachings of Jesus emphasizing personal responsibility, and the idea that women must cover up was added later by writers adding stuff to Paul's letters.

Another major ideal of this movement, which I have touched on, is the final authority of the man. Men are seen as little kings, granted authority by g0d, who must be obeyed. Women don't dare teach or think in front of men, that's not submissive and might make them look stupid. When you treat fifty percent of your populations like moronic baby producing machines, that's bad. I know they'll say it's because they love women, and it's how g0d intended it. That's exactly the same argument some Muslim men I talked with in Hong Kong had to say. In fact, most of this movement seems indistinguishable to an outsider from how Muslims talk about women. Replace Pastor with Imam, Bible with Koran, and God with Allah, and there's not much difference.

I was home schooled for a part of my education. It was nothing on how this movement sees homeschooling. It's seen as a way to control the children, and keep them from questioning anything. I guess I would be scared too, knowing that my beliefs had been proved false and ridiculous. You want to keep your kids away from that and indoctrinate them, so when they finally are able to think for themselves, they can't. Smother them with lies and falsehoods, so much so that if they ever stop believing, their whole world view is ripped away. It's hard to shake something like that. I mean, if someone told you that everything your parents and those around you brought you up to believe was mainly bullshit, what would you do? If you are constantly told, "This is what g0d wants, and if you disobey him, you are going to burn in hell!", you're going to be scared when someone challenges that. Personally, I think you could make a strong argument that it's abuse.

I am only halfway through the book, I might have some more thoughts when I am done. The fact that people justify what they do by saying it's 'Biblical' really bothers me.
I would point out that Katheryn Joyce's tone in the book is not a condemning one. It reads more like a documentary to me, which is all the more sad. She does not have to say how horrible this movement is, it's so blatantly obvious. Something that has also really bothered me is how much this is mainstream in American Christian community. The pastors, teachers and leaders who endorse and support it are big names. From Focus on the family to John Piper. I grew up thinking they were people I could trust. That illusion was buried awhile back, but this just helped put another nail in the coffin. I guarantee if you run in Christian circles you will run into variations of this type of thinking. If I ever have daughters, my greatest fear would be they choose to marry some lunatic who believes this shit.
Cheers.

Sad and scary

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver
This is a very depressing look at modern witchcraft. As in ages past, it's the vulnerable and weak that are the victims. I would like to think this is an isolated incident, but it's not. Even in Canada and the U.S. people speak as if witches are something to be afraid of, even Sarah Palin's church had a speaker that prayed to protect her from witchcraft. I know most people will be horrified by all that, believers and non believers. I just don't know if it's belief that separates your average evangelical in North America from the ones in that part of Africa. Then if they are not separated by belief, what would it take for that to happen here?
This AIG video is a good example. I think I might know what they are trying to say, but is sure looks like they are saying, "believe in g0d or some kid is going to shoot you."
Anyways, this all has me kind of depressed.
Scott