|
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism | 
 enlarge | Author: Timothy Keller
Publisher: Penguin Audio
Category: Book
List Price: $34.95
Buy New: $23.07
You Save: $11.88 (34%)
New (31) Used (8) from $19.79
Rating:  103 reviews
Sales Rank: 90390
Format: Abridged, Audiobook
Media: Audio CD
Edition: Abridged
Number Of Items: 5
Pages: 6
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 5.7 x 5.3 x 0.8
ISBN: 0143142941
Dewey Decimal Number: 239
EAN: 9780143142942
ASIN: 0143142941
Publication Date: February 14, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The End of Faith. The God Delusion. God Is Not Great. Letter to a Christian Nation. Bestseller lists are filled with doubters. But what happens when you actually doubt your doubts?
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 98 more reviews...
 Honeyed words signifying dogmatism, not intellect. August 23, 2008
3 out of 10 found this review helpful
As an atheist, I looked forward to reading this book to find what an intellectual and sophisticated believer would say to a skeptic. Keller leads with a convincing presentation of both skeptical and dogmatic viewpoints, and leads the reader to believe that he will "explode" the case for atheism and otherwise answer skepticism with convincing and highly reasoned arguments. However, for all his good writing and insistent good will, the intellectual tenor of this book is as hackneyed as they come- as classic an apologia as one might want to find from the last decade or the last century. His coups de grace generally invoke C. S. Lewis, whose chestnuts of apology hardly break new intellectual ground.
On the problem of evil, he concludes: "Just because you can't see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn't mean that can't be one." This is of course the old panglossian argument that all is for the good, at least by the mysterious ways of god. The problem is that scripture and religious believers have very definite ideas about what is just and unjust, to the point of a license to kill (the just war, not to mention the inquisition). So this cognitive humility foisted on the skeptic suddenly evaporates when the issue is, say, abortion, or the divinity of Jesus. The fact is that humans have an inborn and cultivated sense of morals, which is what they use to assess whether a religion is beneficial, not the other way around. Indeed, Keller then turns around to give secular reasons (the liberation of women) why Christianity was at its origin was more moral than its surrounding community. It is our subjective and evolving moral sense that is the criterion, not words on a page, let alone words from the bronze age.
On the problem of multiple religions, Keller presents an equally deficient and hackneyed solution. Quoting Alvin Plantinga in answer to the proposition that a Christian would in all probability be Muslim if raised in a Muslim society, he notes: "... If the pluralist had been born in Morocco he probably wouldn't be a pluralist. Does it follow that ... his pluralist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process?". The problem with this formulation is that it ignores the reasoning at issue. The "leap of faith" that is required to take on religious belief is notoriously non-intellectual (as Keller admits in his introduction as being the "second barrier" to his personal faith, which was overcome with a personal experience of god's presence). This leap is socially conditioned, as is the expression of religious emotions generally. Thus the religious person takes on the religious forms she was born into with few exceptions. On the other hand, the skeptical reasoning process applies equally to all cultural settings, and results in a dismissal of each of the religious forms, resulting in a logically consistent and universal viewpoint rather than a parochially artistic product. There is no harm in valuing the many expressions of religious sentiment that humanity has generated over the millennia, but we should not mistake those expressions for intellect.
Ultimately, you should read this book if you want uplifting stories of how urban, hip (yet gullible) people joined the Redeemer church. But do not read this book if you are looking for deep intellectual discussions of skepticism and why one might honestly reason one's way to Christianity.
 A masterful and clear explanation of Christianity August 17, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Not a complete explanation of God, of course. But it must be one of the most clear and comprehensive ones. The author relies heavily on the Christian writers C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. But he does not ignore the opposition. Timothy Keller also very clearly explains the reasoning of popular atheist writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchins. Also other religions are not ignored. You can gain a hell of a good religious education from just this one book.
It's a great read August 17, 2008
This book is very thought provoking and insightful. Tim Keller seems to have a very good ability of addressing some very difficult questions, fairly and humbly. I recommend this book to anyone who is wrestling with some of the big questions in life.
Not Christianity, but a nice modernized religion nonetheless August 16, 2008
1 out of 10 found this review helpful
The Bible isn't so warm and cozy as the author would make it out to be -- that's the problem with newage Christianity and this book; all lovey-dovey and no law. Jesus himself said "you cannot follow me unless you know scripture." As the New Testament wasn't created yet -- the Roman Catholics put it together a couple centuries later, then Jesus was referring to the Old Testament with all of its nastiness. In addition, the New Testament has some pretty scary bits in it too.
I think the nastiness has it's purpose. God may not be the pacifist, fellow sufferer that this books imagines. God seems pretty vengeful, jealous, manipulative, sadistic, blood-thirsty and cruel sometimes -- can't deny that part of his nature as it is well documented in both the New and Old Testaments. Nice to imagine a grandfatherly God, but that would be selective reading. It would nice to have it be true though.
Also, the author claims to be following the 'original' intent of Christianity (he calls himself orthodox,) but still retains the Roman Catholic notion of Trinity by misreading 'son of god' to mean that Jesus is literally god in a different form. In the Gospels, the being of Jesus as "son of God", corresponds to the typical Hasid from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by divine intervention performs miracles and exorcisms. The Romans were polytheists who misunderstood this, and managed to retain their polytheism within a paganized Christian faith -- ie. the Trinity, and all the saint worship.
The 'Reason for God' isn't a reason at all. Just the moral insight from an arguably very nice person who mistakenly thinks he is walking in the footsteps of the ancients -- he calls himself 'orthodox'; when he is in fact, very much removed and a 'modern good man' who sees a God that appears to be more a reflection of his own personal modern sensibilities than a reflection of the ancient texts.
Not Christianity in the ancient sense, but a modern polytheism based loosely on the original texts, and contemporary sensibilities.
A model for apologetics August 13, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
What sets this book apart from other Christian apologetic books is its tone and the manner in which it presents the material. It's clear that pastor Keller put in a lot of thought in 1) the orderly way the content is presented within each chapter, 2) the tone with which he conveys the ideas, and 3) understanding the vantage points and experiences that nonbelievers and even some believers are coming from.
For the first point, the chapter on evil exemplifies Keller at his best. There are some logical arguments that he uses to address the issue of how a good God could allow evil and suffering in the world. He doesn't leave you hanging or browbeaten by the sheer weight of the logical force of the arguments. He ends the chapter by talking about the suffering of God. For a nonbeliever and for the believer, the last thing anyone wants to hear, when one goes through personal trial, are the logical holes behind the assertion of a good God allowing evil. When one suffers, words of logic does nothing to make sense of the situation. If anything, it's the silence of compassion that is best displayed by a powerful God, who suffers along with the rest of humanity and who is, thus, able to identify with the pain and despair. Why does evil happen? It's hard to come up with logic to explain children dying in senseless tragedies like the Sichuan earthquake or Myanmar floods but one thing that's for certain, Keller points out, is that God is not oblivious nor untouched by the pain and sufferings of the world. This is how he ends that chapter and in all of my readings of apologetic books, Keller did the best job in ending a chapter on the problem of evil by talking about the Christian God who suffers along with the rest of humanity.
For the second point, you really have to hear him in person. I got a chance to hear him at Stanfurd and Cal Berkeley. It feels nothing like an academic lecture but rather his gentle tone and warm exuberance makes you feel like your grandfather just pulled you aside to give you one of those talks on life and you are all ears. I think that tone is aptly conveyed throughout the book and makes it for pleasurable reading.
For the third point, he's had many experiences counseling and fielding questions regarding God, Bible, Christianity, etc. from people from all walks of life. Because of this, this really allows him to understand where people are coming from with their questions. Reading through the book, you get the sense that the basis of many people's questions/doubts/objections to Christianity isn't really so much logical as it is personal.
This is a great book. Ignore those reviews that say that this is too light and shallow. The believers who say such things have really missed the point of evangelism, which is relational in nature and not about winning a debate through the use of sheer force of logic. God did not win our hearts over by cornering us with logic but by dying for us. I think that's the difference with Christianity and the other religions. The gods of other religions respond to humanity's rebellion by saying, "You must die for your sins." The Christian God, on the other hand, in response to humanity's rebellion says, "I must die for your sins." This is what sets apart the Christian God from others.
Aside from that, the reason why I gave it 4 stars is because the chapter on science was weak. Other than that, this book is destined to be a classic. Enjoy!!!
|
|
|
|
Powered by CBN AssociateStore
| |
