The Lack of Reason for God
Sep. 10th, 2014 05:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blimixFive years ago, a Christian friend handed me a copy of Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, which turned out to be an exercise in using bad logic to justify Christianity. I was sorely tempted to take and publish notes on the whole book, but pointing out its logical flaws was less challenging than shooting fish in a barrel. So I just stopped reading it. A friend of mine has been reading it recently, and wished to discuss it with me. So we are making this a little book club, for which I will be taking notes on one chapter at a time.
Standard disclaimer: This, despite being a public post, is not an invitation for a religion debate with strangers. Been there, done that, still jaded.
Introduction
(Page numbers are from the hardcover version of the book.)
p. xii. Keller noted with confusion that (in 1968) the people seeking social justice were nonreligious moral relativists. He asked, "If morality is relative, why isn't social justice as well?" He was conflating two kinds of moral relativism: A common mistake. Those seeking social justice were working toward everyone's good, while recognizing that different people have different paths toward the good (which is moral relativism). However, the idea that "all moralities are equally valid," which is both absurd and useless (in that it denies any reason to use any particular morality, and makes murder as good as saving lives), is what some people mistake for moral relativism. It is this latter, absurd idea that liberals lack (though I know two who claim to hold it; we cannot all be great at logic!). Proper moral relativism does not mean that we should abandon social justice, and accept mass murder.
p. xv. While there may indeed be a shift (in both directions) away from moderate religion, I am extremely skeptical of Keller's implication that most people nowadays choose, rather than inherit, their faith.
Keller writes, "Arguments depend on having commonly held reference points that both sides can hold each other to. When fundamental understandings of reality conflict, it is hard to find anything to which to appeal." I thoroughly agree. When speaking with friends who disagree with me about, for example, politics, drugs, or religion, we tend to get nowhere in communicating with each other, and we reveal deep differences in our basic understandings of the subjects.
p. xvii. Keller argues that all skepticism is really faith: "All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B."
Anyone reading this will likely note how preposterous that is. But just in case: You can doubt something without believing its opposite, just by admitting that you do not know which is true. An agnostic, for example, can question God's existence without having to believe that God doesn't exist.
He goes on to say, of someone who is uninterested in the question of God, "The speaker is betting his or her life that no God exists who would hold you accountable for your beliefs and behavior if you didn't feel the need for him. That may be true or it may not be true, but, again, it is quite a leap of faith."
He is wrong on two levels: First, it does not take faith to be uninterested in a question that doesn't interest you. All it takes is indifference. He bases his "faith" claim on his own faith that the question is worth answering. Second, he backhandedly invokes a standard persuasion: If God exists, then you have to believe in him, or you're going to Hell. That statement alone takes an awful lot of faith in a vengeful and egomaniacal God. If God is not so awful, then the uninterested party is not "betting his or her life". (And if God is thought to be so awful, an apathy born of disgust (much like that caused by politics) may easily be responsible for indifference to the question of his existence.)
p. xxii. Keller writes, regarding an atheist couple at church: "One of the things that kept them on the trail, however, was the large number of believing Christians they met that were every bit as sophisticated and smart as anyone else they'd met in the city. Finally they were not only convinced of Christianity's intellectual credibility..."
If only it were so simple. "Smart people believe it, so it must be true." Sadly, even smart people get taken in by scams and fallacies. It requires the application of experience and critical thinking skills to avoid those. Being smart makes it easier to acquire skills, but by no means guarantees that a person will either gain relevant experience or learn any particular skill, critical thinking included. A smart friend of mine very happily converted to fundamentalist Christianity, because it filled her need to avoid responsibility for her own actions (Letting an authority figure tell you what to do is a lot easier, even when you're smart.), and because the priest caught her in a time of need, using the "bible prophecies" con. Her acceptance of Christianity did not give it any "intellectual credibility," despite her intelligence.
Next week: Keller attempts to dismiss the divisiveness of religion.
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.
(Page numbers are from the hardcover version of the book.)
p. xii. Keller noted with confusion that (in 1968) the people seeking social justice were nonreligious moral relativists. He asked, "If morality is relative, why isn't social justice as well?" He was conflating two kinds of moral relativism: A common mistake. Those seeking social justice were working toward everyone's good, while recognizing that different people have different paths toward the good (which is moral relativism). However, the idea that "all moralities are equally valid," which is both absurd and useless (in that it denies any reason to use any particular morality, and makes murder as good as saving lives), is what some people mistake for moral relativism. It is this latter, absurd idea that liberals lack (though I know two who claim to hold it; we cannot all be great at logic!). Proper moral relativism does not mean that we should abandon social justice, and accept mass murder.
p. xv. While there may indeed be a shift (in both directions) away from moderate religion, I am extremely skeptical of Keller's implication that most people nowadays choose, rather than inherit, their faith.
Keller writes, "Arguments depend on having commonly held reference points that both sides can hold each other to. When fundamental understandings of reality conflict, it is hard to find anything to which to appeal." I thoroughly agree. When speaking with friends who disagree with me about, for example, politics, drugs, or religion, we tend to get nowhere in communicating with each other, and we reveal deep differences in our basic understandings of the subjects.
p. xvii. Keller argues that all skepticism is really faith: "All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B."
Anyone reading this will likely note how preposterous that is. But just in case: You can doubt something without believing its opposite, just by admitting that you do not know which is true. An agnostic, for example, can question God's existence without having to believe that God doesn't exist.
He goes on to say, of someone who is uninterested in the question of God, "The speaker is betting his or her life that no God exists who would hold you accountable for your beliefs and behavior if you didn't feel the need for him. That may be true or it may not be true, but, again, it is quite a leap of faith."
He is wrong on two levels: First, it does not take faith to be uninterested in a question that doesn't interest you. All it takes is indifference. He bases his "faith" claim on his own faith that the question is worth answering. Second, he backhandedly invokes a standard persuasion: If God exists, then you have to believe in him, or you're going to Hell. That statement alone takes an awful lot of faith in a vengeful and egomaniacal God. If God is not so awful, then the uninterested party is not "betting his or her life". (And if God is thought to be so awful, an apathy born of disgust (much like that caused by politics) may easily be responsible for indifference to the question of his existence.)
p. xxii. Keller writes, regarding an atheist couple at church: "One of the things that kept them on the trail, however, was the large number of believing Christians they met that were every bit as sophisticated and smart as anyone else they'd met in the city. Finally they were not only convinced of Christianity's intellectual credibility..."
If only it were so simple. "Smart people believe it, so it must be true." Sadly, even smart people get taken in by scams and fallacies. It requires the application of experience and critical thinking skills to avoid those. Being smart makes it easier to acquire skills, but by no means guarantees that a person will either gain relevant experience or learn any particular skill, critical thinking included. A smart friend of mine very happily converted to fundamentalist Christianity, because it filled her need to avoid responsibility for her own actions (Letting an authority figure tell you what to do is a lot easier, even when you're smart.), and because the priest caught her in a time of need, using the "bible prophecies" con. Her acceptance of Christianity did not give it any "intellectual credibility," despite her intelligence.
Next week: Keller attempts to dismiss the divisiveness of religion.
The whole series.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 05:33 am (UTC)As a religious person of faith married to a non-religious person of high moral standards, I think this guy just doesn't get it.
--Beth
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 05:52 am (UTC)My "book club" friend and I have a slight disagreement about how much Keller "doesn't get it" (either a whole lot or an awful lot) versus how much he is deliberately disingenuous in order to make his case. (Some slight patterns show up in chapter 1, which I intend for next week's post.)
Also, thank you for commenting: It will be easier to keep my writing civil (i.e., not taking unwarranted pot-shots at religion) if I keep in mind that religious people whom I know and like will be reading it. *hugs*
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-11 04:24 pm (UTC)Good luck!
--Beth
(no subject)
Date: 2014-09-12 03:30 am (UTC)Thanks!