The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
Posted on: March 2, 2008 - 10:06pm
Offline
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
http://www.amazon.com/s/&field-keywords=god+age+skepticism
Found this book at Barnes & Noble, and while it doesn't offer any new arguments, it appears to to the casual reader. It tries to present itself as being just as rational as The God Delusion but falls short with its circular reasoning and rationalization. Still, a great number of people will respond positively to it. I'd like people here to go over all the claims in the book and debunk it thoroughly, so at least people can be referred to a page if they ever bring up this book.
- Login to post comments
Do you think you could summarize the claims?
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Just the name sounds kooky to me. Belief in a age of skepticism? When will theists get it in to their head they aren't a oppressed minority.Sadly...
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
They know it isn't true. The fundies just play the fraudulent victim game to win the protection of moderates.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It wouldn't have drawn my attention if it wasn't on the front table of Barnes & Noble where the newly featured and soon to be popular books are located. On Amazon it has some users who have given it five stars. It's an all white cover with black lettering, and the jacket claims it uses indepth sources and research to make great points about why faith is still necessary.
But actually flipping through the book shows the same tired arguments, only people may believe some of them, nod their head and say "good point", based on the writing style alone which encourages agreement rather than critical thinking. Examples include Atheism is a set of beliefs too, if the world is supposed to be objective then how can you have an intrinsic sense of morality, if someone left Christianity out of disappointment it was because they weren't among positive true Christians, and Christianity isn't on equal ground with any other belief system because head explodes
Woa! The cover is very...misleading.
Good
I read most of this book over the weekend. My bf bought it for his sister in law for Xmas and he wanted me to read it. As far as the philosophical arguments go it's definitely nothing new, but something that caught my interest was the chapters where the author goes into detail about why the bible is a legitimate historical document, quoting people like C. S. Lewis about how the writing style indicates that it couldn't have been a legend or fiction or whatever because there was too much detail, etc. etc. I'm no historian, though.
Over all, though, it's a must read for anyone who insists on believing in Jesus. If more Christians believed what he writes about then this world would be a better place, I think.
If it does state that the bible is a legitimate historical document then that alone debunks the book. There is proof the bible was(once written) changed numerous times, books left out, and through the translations much of the original text was lost. Read "Misquoting Jesus" for more on this, although I'm sure you could google, "why the bible is inaccurate" and get the same info.
"I can resist anything, except temptation..."
~Wilde
How many times can you repackage a skunk?
Without even having read it lets go over the basics.
"The bible says"
"God can do what he wants"
"My personal experience"
"Pay no attention to the magical claims"
I am sure you could add to the list. But this covers the biggies.
The sad part is the people who swallow this tripe, wouldn't buy it if you switched Bible quotes with Koran quotes and the author was a Muslim.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Point taken. Oh, my favorite part, btw, was when he spends a whole chapter trying to convince his reader that he/she already believes in God, they just choose not to accept it or whatever.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Just shows they are on the defensive.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
People get out of it what they bring to it. If there is too much detail how do we explain the fact that the descriptive detail never rises above that a stage directions? With no physical description of Jesus any actor can play the part.
The entire New Testament is set in one of the most "interesting" periods of the Roman empire including events in bibleland. Yet there is not a single indication of any event. Nero, Caligula, the Judean revolt, destruction of the temple as well as many events of much more interest at the time than what interests us looking backwards. But no mention at all.
Epistles are simply letters whose contents are ad hoc to whatever came up at the time of writing. Even more so we would expect to find subjects related to current events.
As for the writing itself, the illiterate authors whose native language was Aramaic write in Greek and apparently think in Greek. Paul adopts a 5th c. BC Greek philosopher idea of the Logos in relation to Jesus. Beyond knowing the was born, taught and died appears to not know any of the Gospel details about him even though he declares he learned all there was to know about Jesus from those who knew him. His declarations about Jesus touch on things Peter does not mention in his letters and which did not make it into the gospels.
It is unclear how the contents can be declared a credible record because of these and much more.
To touch on one supposed event and it appearing to be a real event, consider the money changer melee where he beats the crap out of them. Is this realistic? If we know anything about people who carry around large amounts of money it is that they employ bodyguards. Not only to protect themselves but to deter thieves while doing business. So tell me how this Jesus character goes postal on moneychangers without getting his ass kicked six ways from Saturday?
The world is what it is and is not changed by the religiousity of it members. The response of the religious has been apathy to encouragement of all the atrocities in history great and small. The involvement of organized religion in addressing atrocities is always trying to get out in front of a social movement already in progress. (I must hurry to the front of my people so I can lead them! -- El Capitan) This is how it was with slavery a thing still not officially labeled sinful by religions.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Hey Guys,
I'm a Christian who is deeply interested in science, theology, philosophy and matters of historical authority. I find it interesting coming upon this website that most believe Christians are illogical and knave. I have long studied Design Theories and Evolutionary Theories and find it scarcely illogical to take a rational evidential stance against Evolution or Atheism. I also have studied the subjects of Biblical authority and it's archaeological accuracy found time and time again confirmed by many. What about causation? The Beginning? Biogenesis? Fossil Stasis? Irreducible Complexity? Is there something in the Doctrine of Christianity that offends you that so many obtain a bias against it's faith? I know these aren't new questions to you all and I respect all opinion's and responses. I am just looking to understand the 'other side' a little better to help humble my faith. I know everyone can be a respectable loving person with opposing views, "come let us reason together" Thanks All!!
Alright then Xerxes, welcome to the site!
I'm going to start up with some honesty - you will find that most of us do find various aspects of Christianity offensive.
That said, this doesn't determine our atheism. When I first fully rejected Christianity, I wasn't fully an atheist.
I was still open towards a "God" of sorts. Atheism came later through reasoning.
Many of the theists who challenge our atheism do so from a non-Christian perspective.
It sounds like you come across many arguments in theist/Christian favour.
You're right that we've come across many of these arguments and found them to be ultimately flawed.
I'll pick one for example; "The beginning" (AKA The Cosmological Argument)
This argues that the universe must have had a beginning and must have been caused by something.
1) The "a priori" arguments against the universe having a beginning usually talk about "actual infinites being impossible" and in my experience use a combination of wordplay and a misunderstanding of mathematics to argue that the universe must be finite. Whatever event you consider the beginning, why shouldn't that have been caused by a previous event? And that previous event in turn...
2) Even if the universe did have a beginning (and to be fair, the big bang also suggests this) then we're talking about the beginning of time itself. When talking about "cause" we're talking about events that happen within time. i.e. if "A caused B" then A happened and then B happened. That's what we mean by "cause". If we're talking about something causing the universe, causing time, then we're talking about something being before time and the universe, i.e. there being a "time" before "time" began. If so, that "time" would be the beginning of time...
What I'm saying is, if you say "Time began" then there can be no "before".
If time "began" then that was the beginning - no possibility of anything happening before, so it's contradictory to talk of something "causing" time to begin.
Make sense?
First thing, sign up for an account, so it's easier for you to follow discussions, and for us to respond to you. Otherwise, your current unregistered posts will blur together with all the other unregistered posters.
After that, try posting an introduction post on the Introductions forum.
And then, you might want to try answering this question: What evidence do you have for your beliefs?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!