The Lack of Reason for God, Chapter 11
Dec. 4th, 2014 12:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blimixThis is part of a series examining the the logic of Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.
Standard disclaimer: This, despite being a public post, is not an invitation for a religion debate with strangers. Been there, done that, still jaded.
Last week: Chapter 10 discussed building one's identity without god.
Chapter 11
In which a particular style of Christianity, misrepresented as Christianity as a whole, is the only correct way to accept god.
(Page numbers are from the hardcover version of the book.)
p. 174. Keller claims that Christianity differs from all other religions in that its salvation is not earned, but freely given.
Again (see Chapter 1 pp. 18-19), this applies only to evangelical Christianity. Other sects place spiritual importance on performing good works.
pp. 176-177. Using the fictional Dr. Jekyll's haughty pride as an example, Keller claims that trying to become a good person by doing good things leads to self-aggrandizement and worse. "Self-salvation through good works may produce a great deal of moral behavior in your life, but inside you are filled with self-righteousness, cruelty, and bigotry, and you are miserable. You are always comparing yourself to other people, and you are never sure you are being good enough."
There are (at least) two kinds of pride. Pride in one's accomplishments is emotionally healthy, and provides useful positive feedback that adds to the satisfaction of making the world a better place. Pride in merely being one's self (e.g., pride in being white, rich, smart, or religiously observant) leads to unhealthy stagnation, refusal to acknowledge the need for continual self-improvement, and, in severe cases, defensively lashing out at any suggestions of one's own imperfection.
When Dr. Jekyll starts thinking himself better than others, he adopts the second form of pride (which, in the book, turns him evil). However, a person can do good, take pride in their works, and not suffer the consequences that Keller attributes to pride.
I have written here about evaluating one's own goodness.
p. 178. Keller criticizes pharisaism, a lifestyle placing strict religious observance as the highest good. Using the context of the previous chapter, he states that such people build their self-image on their self-righteousness, leaving them anxious, defensive, and hostile. "Churches that are filled with self-righteous, exclusive, insecure, angry, moralistic people are extremely unattractive. Their public pronouncements are often highly judgmental, while internally such churches experience many bitter conflicts, splits, and divisions. When one of their leaders has a moral lapse, the churches either rationalize it and denounce the leader's critics, or else they scapegoat him. Millions of people raised in or near these kinds of churches reject Christianity at an early age or in college largely because of their experience."
Here, he seems to be specifically denouncing evangelical Christianity, and making overtures to those who have been chased away from the religion by their evangelical churches. Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, seem to handle their lifestyle of strict religious observance very differently, usually staying amiable and humble. So Keller is likely mistaken in attributing typical evangelical Christian unpleasantness to strict religiosity. (Also, Keller's recognition of these Christian churches as "religious" rather than "gospel" undermines his overgeneralized statements about Christianity as a whole being based upon the idea of grace rather than works. This contradiction is highlighted by the fact that the churches most prone to pharisaism, which he attributes to "religion" as opposed to grace, are the ones that preach salvation by grace to the exclusion of works.)
My book club friend notes that Keller's dichotomy places "salvation by grace" on one side, and lumps "doing good works" together with "following the rules" on the other side. Yet, a person might do good works while not following the rules. (I think it may not have occurred to Keller that people might value and do good works because they are good people, rather than because they are following rules. Perhaps he also hasn't figured out that the rules are not always good. He really needs to play Dungeons and Dragons, and thereby learn about the existence of the Neutral/Good alignment.)
p. 180. Keller lists differences in lifestyle and self-image that result from belief in "gospel"/grace (I'm saved because I'm saved) and "religion" (which he redefines narrowly here to indicate a lifestyle of good works aimed at earning salvation). He first says that while "gospel" motivates through gratitude, "religion" motivates through fear.
Fear of what? There's no Hell in Judaism. What about a Buddhist who does good work because it's the right thing to do? That's not fear. Even a "religious" Christian might be more motivated by a desire to live up to god's expectations than by a fear of failure and/or Hell (though I'd not care to wager on the proportion of such Christians).
pp. 180-181. Religion, Keller says, will make you "feel superior and disdainful" if you are succeeding, or "filled with a loathing toward yourself" otherwise. Gospel, he says, gave him confidence, humility, and a lessened concern for his spiritual and moral status.
Confidence, humility, and lack of dependence on a self-image based on a moral scale are all achievable without recourse to god. They are simply the results of emotional security.
(Admittedly, Keller thinks that he has already demonstrated, in the previous chapter, that one's identity should be built upon god, so he is now using that as a premise. However, since one can gain these benefits without invoking god, at all, one can certainly do it without invoking a particular version of a particular god such as his Gospel Jesus.)
pp. 181-182. "Postmodern thinkers understand that the self is formed and strengthened through the exclusion of the Other -- those who do not have the values or traits on which I base my own significance. We define ourselves by pointing to those whom we are not. We bolster our sense of worth by devaluing those of other races, beliefs, and traits." Keller presents Gospel implicitly as the only alternative to this, leading to better treatment of "Others".
This premise is contradicted by the entire previous chapter, which was dedicated to numerous, varied examples of ways to define one's self. Doing so through one's relationship with god, which Keller recommended, would already obviate this problem (regardless of "religious" or "gospel" leanings), as would most of the other methods described.
Also, Keller misrepresents postmodernism. This is understandable, as he has attempted to distill elementary school psychology from the truly sublime bullshit that is postmodernist thought on identity.
p. 182. "Moralistic religion leads its participants to the conviction that if they live an upstanding life, then God (and others) owe them respect and favor." Obvious examples of pitfalls follow. "The gospel, however, makes it possible for someone to escape the spiral of bitterness, self-recrimination, and despair when life goes wrong. They know that the basic premise of religion -- that if you live a good life, things will go well for you -- is wrong."
This "basic premise of religion" is no such thing. The fact that quality of life doesn't correlate with a person's religious observance is perfectly obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention. Aside from religious pundits who claim that natural disasters are divine punishment for liberalism and tolerance of homosexuality (leading to interesting questions about the prevalence of tornadoes in the Bible Belt), most* people who expect divine rewards or punishments for their behavior expect it in the afterlife, or in their next life, or in some other intangible form. Outside of Keller's "gospel" paradigm, "salvation" means suffering in this life to earn rewards in the next.
* As my book club friend points out, there have always been some who thought that their good fortune was a reward from god. To my knowledge, this isn't religious teaching. Rather, it is the same sort of egotism that makes multimillionaires think that they've earned all their money.
Next week: In chapter 12, Keller explains the appeal of the crucifixion.
The whole series.
Standard disclaimer: This, despite being a public post, is not an invitation for a religion debate with strangers. Been there, done that, still jaded.
Last week: Chapter 10 discussed building one's identity without god.
In which a particular style of Christianity, misrepresented as Christianity as a whole, is the only correct way to accept god.
(Page numbers are from the hardcover version of the book.)
p. 174. Keller claims that Christianity differs from all other religions in that its salvation is not earned, but freely given.
Again (see Chapter 1 pp. 18-19), this applies only to evangelical Christianity. Other sects place spiritual importance on performing good works.
pp. 176-177. Using the fictional Dr. Jekyll's haughty pride as an example, Keller claims that trying to become a good person by doing good things leads to self-aggrandizement and worse. "Self-salvation through good works may produce a great deal of moral behavior in your life, but inside you are filled with self-righteousness, cruelty, and bigotry, and you are miserable. You are always comparing yourself to other people, and you are never sure you are being good enough."
There are (at least) two kinds of pride. Pride in one's accomplishments is emotionally healthy, and provides useful positive feedback that adds to the satisfaction of making the world a better place. Pride in merely being one's self (e.g., pride in being white, rich, smart, or religiously observant) leads to unhealthy stagnation, refusal to acknowledge the need for continual self-improvement, and, in severe cases, defensively lashing out at any suggestions of one's own imperfection.
When Dr. Jekyll starts thinking himself better than others, he adopts the second form of pride (which, in the book, turns him evil). However, a person can do good, take pride in their works, and not suffer the consequences that Keller attributes to pride.
I have written here about evaluating one's own goodness.
p. 178. Keller criticizes pharisaism, a lifestyle placing strict religious observance as the highest good. Using the context of the previous chapter, he states that such people build their self-image on their self-righteousness, leaving them anxious, defensive, and hostile. "Churches that are filled with self-righteous, exclusive, insecure, angry, moralistic people are extremely unattractive. Their public pronouncements are often highly judgmental, while internally such churches experience many bitter conflicts, splits, and divisions. When one of their leaders has a moral lapse, the churches either rationalize it and denounce the leader's critics, or else they scapegoat him. Millions of people raised in or near these kinds of churches reject Christianity at an early age or in college largely because of their experience."
Here, he seems to be specifically denouncing evangelical Christianity, and making overtures to those who have been chased away from the religion by their evangelical churches. Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, seem to handle their lifestyle of strict religious observance very differently, usually staying amiable and humble. So Keller is likely mistaken in attributing typical evangelical Christian unpleasantness to strict religiosity. (Also, Keller's recognition of these Christian churches as "religious" rather than "gospel" undermines his overgeneralized statements about Christianity as a whole being based upon the idea of grace rather than works. This contradiction is highlighted by the fact that the churches most prone to pharisaism, which he attributes to "religion" as opposed to grace, are the ones that preach salvation by grace to the exclusion of works.)
My book club friend notes that Keller's dichotomy places "salvation by grace" on one side, and lumps "doing good works" together with "following the rules" on the other side. Yet, a person might do good works while not following the rules. (I think it may not have occurred to Keller that people might value and do good works because they are good people, rather than because they are following rules. Perhaps he also hasn't figured out that the rules are not always good. He really needs to play Dungeons and Dragons, and thereby learn about the existence of the Neutral/Good alignment.)
p. 180. Keller lists differences in lifestyle and self-image that result from belief in "gospel"/grace (I'm saved because I'm saved) and "religion" (which he redefines narrowly here to indicate a lifestyle of good works aimed at earning salvation). He first says that while "gospel" motivates through gratitude, "religion" motivates through fear.
Fear of what? There's no Hell in Judaism. What about a Buddhist who does good work because it's the right thing to do? That's not fear. Even a "religious" Christian might be more motivated by a desire to live up to god's expectations than by a fear of failure and/or Hell (though I'd not care to wager on the proportion of such Christians).
pp. 180-181. Religion, Keller says, will make you "feel superior and disdainful" if you are succeeding, or "filled with a loathing toward yourself" otherwise. Gospel, he says, gave him confidence, humility, and a lessened concern for his spiritual and moral status.
Confidence, humility, and lack of dependence on a self-image based on a moral scale are all achievable without recourse to god. They are simply the results of emotional security.
(Admittedly, Keller thinks that he has already demonstrated, in the previous chapter, that one's identity should be built upon god, so he is now using that as a premise. However, since one can gain these benefits without invoking god, at all, one can certainly do it without invoking a particular version of a particular god such as his Gospel Jesus.)
pp. 181-182. "Postmodern thinkers understand that the self is formed and strengthened through the exclusion of the Other -- those who do not have the values or traits on which I base my own significance. We define ourselves by pointing to those whom we are not. We bolster our sense of worth by devaluing those of other races, beliefs, and traits." Keller presents Gospel implicitly as the only alternative to this, leading to better treatment of "Others".
This premise is contradicted by the entire previous chapter, which was dedicated to numerous, varied examples of ways to define one's self. Doing so through one's relationship with god, which Keller recommended, would already obviate this problem (regardless of "religious" or "gospel" leanings), as would most of the other methods described.
Also, Keller misrepresents postmodernism. This is understandable, as he has attempted to distill elementary school psychology from the truly sublime bullshit that is postmodernist thought on identity.
p. 182. "Moralistic religion leads its participants to the conviction that if they live an upstanding life, then God (and others) owe them respect and favor." Obvious examples of pitfalls follow. "The gospel, however, makes it possible for someone to escape the spiral of bitterness, self-recrimination, and despair when life goes wrong. They know that the basic premise of religion -- that if you live a good life, things will go well for you -- is wrong."
This "basic premise of religion" is no such thing. The fact that quality of life doesn't correlate with a person's religious observance is perfectly obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention. Aside from religious pundits who claim that natural disasters are divine punishment for liberalism and tolerance of homosexuality (leading to interesting questions about the prevalence of tornadoes in the Bible Belt), most* people who expect divine rewards or punishments for their behavior expect it in the afterlife, or in their next life, or in some other intangible form. Outside of Keller's "gospel" paradigm, "salvation" means suffering in this life to earn rewards in the next.
* As my book club friend points out, there have always been some who thought that their good fortune was a reward from god. To my knowledge, this isn't religious teaching. Rather, it is the same sort of egotism that makes multimillionaires think that they've earned all their money.
Next week: In chapter 12, Keller explains the appeal of the crucifixion.
The whole series.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-04 11:26 am (UTC)I'm not sure it's mainstream, but there is this: Prosperity theology
(no subject)
Date: 2014-12-04 07:45 pm (UTC)