Reasons against God?
Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God, is the basis for a lecture he recently gave, which sketched three reasons for God and three faith-filled reasons against God. All of his reasons and critiques are pastorally repackaged versions of older lines of thinking. Today we'll look at the reasons against God. By faith-filled reasons against God, I mean that Keller shows how three classical arguments against God have leaps of faith in them. Here they are:
1. "I can't believe in God because of evil and suffering and no all-powerful, all-good God would allow evil and suffering." Keller says that what this really boils down to is not that there is no reason God would allow evil and suffering, but that the person making the argument does not know what good reason God would have. Keller then offers an illustration. Suppose that I asked you to look in a pup tent and tell me if there are any Saint Bernards in it. You could look quickly and realize whether or not there are Saint Bernards. However, suppose I asked you to look and see if there were any mosquitos. That would be more difficult. Perhaps with the complexity of evil and suffering in our world, reasons for it are more akin to mosquitos, discernible only to a being of infinite intelligence. Saying definitively that no reason exists is a leap.
2. "I can't believe in God because no religion can capture everything about God." The classic picture is of five blind people stumbling upon an elephant and each experiencing a different side of it--the trunk, the body, the tail, the ears, the leg... Each has a different picture of the elephant and each is right, although each is significantly limited. Likewise different religions have different vantage points for God, though none has the full view. To say, however, that no religion captures the truth about God necessarily puts one in the position of being above all the other religions. If one knows that no religion captures the truth about God then one has superceded other religions, which is the very position this person wishes to critique. That's a leap.
3. "I can't believe in God because the Bible says x, and we know that x simply isn't true." Keller offers the example of vengeance being God's and Jesus' words to forgive. While most North Americans will say, "Hooray!", they will scoff at the Bible's teaching against sex outside marriage. On the other hand, some older cultures will readily applaud the Bible's teaching on sexual fidelity, but won't be willing to accept its teaching on forgiveness. How can both cultures be right? Keller says that to deny belief in God because the Bible teaches x shows not only great faith in one's culture, as shown above, but also great faith in one's moment of time. Consider that much of what skeptics and social liberals believe differs from their grandparents. Why should we not expect that our grandchildren won't have the same experience of doubting much of what we think? If we believe that our grandchildren will have the same beliefs, then we believe that our moment has achieved truth and enlightenment. That's a leap.
Instead, Keller suggests that if the Bible's teaching really is from God and that no culture or time has perfectly instituted and activated all of its teaching, then at some point every culture will be offended and disagree with the Bible.
Next week we'll look at ways believing in God helps make sense of some of the most important elements of life, though these elements do not prove God. Until then,
what do you think of these reasons and Keller's critiques?
1. "I can't believe in God because of evil and suffering and no all-powerful, all-good God would allow evil and suffering." Keller says that what this really boils down to is not that there is no reason God would allow evil and suffering, but that the person making the argument does not know what good reason God would have. Keller then offers an illustration. Suppose that I asked you to look in a pup tent and tell me if there are any Saint Bernards in it. You could look quickly and realize whether or not there are Saint Bernards. However, suppose I asked you to look and see if there were any mosquitos. That would be more difficult. Perhaps with the complexity of evil and suffering in our world, reasons for it are more akin to mosquitos, discernible only to a being of infinite intelligence. Saying definitively that no reason exists is a leap.
2. "I can't believe in God because no religion can capture everything about God." The classic picture is of five blind people stumbling upon an elephant and each experiencing a different side of it--the trunk, the body, the tail, the ears, the leg... Each has a different picture of the elephant and each is right, although each is significantly limited. Likewise different religions have different vantage points for God, though none has the full view. To say, however, that no religion captures the truth about God necessarily puts one in the position of being above all the other religions. If one knows that no religion captures the truth about God then one has superceded other religions, which is the very position this person wishes to critique. That's a leap.
3. "I can't believe in God because the Bible says x, and we know that x simply isn't true." Keller offers the example of vengeance being God's and Jesus' words to forgive. While most North Americans will say, "Hooray!", they will scoff at the Bible's teaching against sex outside marriage. On the other hand, some older cultures will readily applaud the Bible's teaching on sexual fidelity, but won't be willing to accept its teaching on forgiveness. How can both cultures be right? Keller says that to deny belief in God because the Bible teaches x shows not only great faith in one's culture, as shown above, but also great faith in one's moment of time. Consider that much of what skeptics and social liberals believe differs from their grandparents. Why should we not expect that our grandchildren won't have the same experience of doubting much of what we think? If we believe that our grandchildren will have the same beliefs, then we believe that our moment has achieved truth and enlightenment. That's a leap.
Instead, Keller suggests that if the Bible's teaching really is from God and that no culture or time has perfectly instituted and activated all of its teaching, then at some point every culture will be offended and disagree with the Bible.
Next week we'll look at ways believing in God helps make sense of some of the most important elements of life, though these elements do not prove God. Until then,
what do you think of these reasons and Keller's critiques?
Labels: apologetics, The Reason for God, Tim Keller
posted by Aaron Perry at
11:46 AM
2 Comments:
On the problem of pain, I agree with him that the complaint takes a leap, so to speak, but I do think a good theology better say something about the issue more than what his mosquito comment gives.
Even if the 'solution' is by a very limited analogy, or an appeal to faith in the future, that is, at least, something worth considering.
I have to do a paper on Wolfart Pannenberg this semester. I was a bit surprised at first(especially given his context) that he brushes past the problem of pain by appealing to the hope that God will restore all things in the end. But this makes sense in light of his entire program.
I have gone back and forth on the issue of theodicy. While some of the "big" reasons--free will, soul-making, greater good--offer big defenses, they just don't cut it in terms of specific evils, especially regarding natural evil and animal suffering. I once heard Frances Young say, "Christian theology doesn't have a theodicy; it has a doctrine atonement." But even while I am currently on this opinion, I would still say that Christian theology must say something--preach eschatological atonement--about suffering.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home