The Lack of Reason for God, Chapter 12
Dec. 10th, 2014 04:23 pm![[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 11 discussed grace versus works.
Chapter 12
In which Keller explains the appeal of the crucifixion.
(Page numbers are from the hardcover version of the book.)
There is very little logic or reason to address in this chapter. Keller merely builds up a painful description of forgiveness in order to justify Jesus' crucifixion, and explains his take on what the crucifixion accomplished. There is no content here that a non-believer could find persuasive (though by this point in the book Keller thinks his reader is already converting and just has a few questions).
Keller's claim that forgiveness necessarily involves a great deal of pain is central to the entire chapter: He explains that the crucifixion was god's way of taking the pain of forgiveness of humanity's sins into himself rather than inflicting his pain retributively on humanity (which was apparently his only other option). Keller's claim, however, is wrong. A proper apology (do yourself a favor and click the link) can often heal wounds and enable sincere forgiveness with no cost in pain.
p. 192. "I would argue, of course, that human forgiveness works this way because we unavoidably reflect the image of our Creator. That is why we should not be surprised that if we sense that the only way to triumph over evil is to go through the suffering of forgiveness, that this would be far more true of God, whose just passion to defeat evil and loving desire to forgive others are both infinitely greater than ours."
If this logic were valid, wouldn't every human impulse have an infinitely greater analog in god? Does god have an infinitely greater tendency to make fart jokes than humans do, and if so, does that explain thunder?
p. 193. Keller has spent pages building up forgiveness as a difficult and emotionally costly process. "Why did Jesus have to die in order to forgive us? There was a debt to be paid -- God himself paid it. There was a penalty to be born -- God himself bore it. Forgiveness is always a form of costly suffering."
The "debt" and "penalty" involved in forgiveness are metaphorical. Nobody actually carves out a pound of their own flesh in order to forgive someone, and it would be insane to do so. Similarly, killing one's own earthly incarnation in order to forgive some humans is a ridiculous gesture, at best akin to punching one's self in the stomach for the brief distraction it would afford from a divine headache. One would think that an omnipotent god could shoulder a finite emotional burden without resorting to deadly violence.
p. 193. "Why can't we just concentrate on teaching about how God is a God of love? The answer is that if you take away the Cross you don't have a God of love."
But that's okay, right? In Chapter 5, the Christian god was most definitely not a god of love! Oh, but he was one in chapter 9. So the loving god of chapter 9 needs a violent death on the cross, but the vengeful god of chapter 5 could apparently do fine without it. Got it.
p. 195. "Therefore the Cross, when properly understood, cannot possibly be used to encourage the oppressed to simply accept violence."
The word "Therefore" wrongly implies that this thought is supported by something which has just been said (which was that, on the cross, Jesus joined the ranks of the suffering and powerless). Also, it is likely that this is exactly what the Cross and the entire story of Jesus were created for.
p. 195. "When Jesus suffered for us, he was honoring justice."
Keller provides no justification for that idea, nor does it serve any purpose in the text. If humans wronged god, and god took it out on Jesus, isn't that the exact opposite of justice?
pp. 195-196. Keller asserts that the crucifixion represents god "identifying with the oppressed of the world". "God, in the place of ultimate power, reverses places with the marginalized, the poor, and the oppressed."
Aside from the fact that the marginalized, poor, and oppressed didn't get to be omnipotent and worshiped by a major religion, I actually quite like this thought. I mean, sure, an omniscient god should already understand human suffering without having to experience it personally, but let's ignore that too for a moment. This god stepped out of his comfort zone to experience suffering to which he is normally immune, and which he could happily ignore if he wanted. It's like he grasped the invisibility of divine privilege, and decided to do something about it by living and dying as a mortal for a while, to get a better sense of what it's like for us. (And this was 1,955 years before "Soul Man".)
p. 196. "On the Cross Christ wins through losing, triumphs through defeat, achieves power through weakness and service, comes to wealth via giving all away."
This could use some explanation, if it is to be seen as anything other than feel-good nonsense or Obi-Wan Kenobi fan fiction. (How is triumph different from winning, anyway?)
p. 196. "Racial and class superiority, accrual of money and power at the expense of others, yearning for popularity and recognition, these normal marks of human life, are the opposite of the mindset of those who have understood and experience the Cross."
One might more aptly say that these are things that normal humans grow out of when they grow up emotionally. Christianity is not required, or even useful, for this purpose.
p. 197. "Jesus's death was necessary if God was going to take justice seriously and still love us."
Again, Keller provides no justification for this. Nothing in this chapter actually addresses justice. (My book club friend suggests that Keller might intend "justice" to be the set containing both retribution and forgiveness. Defining justice this way would make sense of Keller's statement, but Keller himself has given no indication of such a definition.)
Keller spends the last several pages of the chapter describing some moving moments of self-sacrifice in fiction, which he then contrasts with the story of Jesus' crucifixion, which he says is much more inspirational and moving because it is true. He appears to be trying merely to convey the appeal of the story, rather than prove any particular point. Perhaps this is a final effort to relieve some prospective converts' visceral aversion (described at the start of the chapter) to the story of the crucifixion.
Next week: In chapter 13, Keller sells the resurrection.
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 11 discussed grace versus works.
In which Keller explains the appeal of the crucifixion.
(Page numbers are from the hardcover version of the book.)
There is very little logic or reason to address in this chapter. Keller merely builds up a painful description of forgiveness in order to justify Jesus' crucifixion, and explains his take on what the crucifixion accomplished. There is no content here that a non-believer could find persuasive (though by this point in the book Keller thinks his reader is already converting and just has a few questions).
Keller's claim that forgiveness necessarily involves a great deal of pain is central to the entire chapter: He explains that the crucifixion was god's way of taking the pain of forgiveness of humanity's sins into himself rather than inflicting his pain retributively on humanity (which was apparently his only other option). Keller's claim, however, is wrong. A proper apology (do yourself a favor and click the link) can often heal wounds and enable sincere forgiveness with no cost in pain.
p. 192. "I would argue, of course, that human forgiveness works this way because we unavoidably reflect the image of our Creator. That is why we should not be surprised that if we sense that the only way to triumph over evil is to go through the suffering of forgiveness, that this would be far more true of God, whose just passion to defeat evil and loving desire to forgive others are both infinitely greater than ours."
If this logic were valid, wouldn't every human impulse have an infinitely greater analog in god? Does god have an infinitely greater tendency to make fart jokes than humans do, and if so, does that explain thunder?
p. 193. Keller has spent pages building up forgiveness as a difficult and emotionally costly process. "Why did Jesus have to die in order to forgive us? There was a debt to be paid -- God himself paid it. There was a penalty to be born -- God himself bore it. Forgiveness is always a form of costly suffering."
The "debt" and "penalty" involved in forgiveness are metaphorical. Nobody actually carves out a pound of their own flesh in order to forgive someone, and it would be insane to do so. Similarly, killing one's own earthly incarnation in order to forgive some humans is a ridiculous gesture, at best akin to punching one's self in the stomach for the brief distraction it would afford from a divine headache. One would think that an omnipotent god could shoulder a finite emotional burden without resorting to deadly violence.
p. 193. "Why can't we just concentrate on teaching about how God is a God of love? The answer is that if you take away the Cross you don't have a God of love."
But that's okay, right? In Chapter 5, the Christian god was most definitely not a god of love! Oh, but he was one in chapter 9. So the loving god of chapter 9 needs a violent death on the cross, but the vengeful god of chapter 5 could apparently do fine without it. Got it.
p. 195. "Therefore the Cross, when properly understood, cannot possibly be used to encourage the oppressed to simply accept violence."
The word "Therefore" wrongly implies that this thought is supported by something which has just been said (which was that, on the cross, Jesus joined the ranks of the suffering and powerless). Also, it is likely that this is exactly what the Cross and the entire story of Jesus were created for.
p. 195. "When Jesus suffered for us, he was honoring justice."
Keller provides no justification for that idea, nor does it serve any purpose in the text. If humans wronged god, and god took it out on Jesus, isn't that the exact opposite of justice?
pp. 195-196. Keller asserts that the crucifixion represents god "identifying with the oppressed of the world". "God, in the place of ultimate power, reverses places with the marginalized, the poor, and the oppressed."
Aside from the fact that the marginalized, poor, and oppressed didn't get to be omnipotent and worshiped by a major religion, I actually quite like this thought. I mean, sure, an omniscient god should already understand human suffering without having to experience it personally, but let's ignore that too for a moment. This god stepped out of his comfort zone to experience suffering to which he is normally immune, and which he could happily ignore if he wanted. It's like he grasped the invisibility of divine privilege, and decided to do something about it by living and dying as a mortal for a while, to get a better sense of what it's like for us. (And this was 1,955 years before "Soul Man".)
p. 196. "On the Cross Christ wins through losing, triumphs through defeat, achieves power through weakness and service, comes to wealth via giving all away."
This could use some explanation, if it is to be seen as anything other than feel-good nonsense or Obi-Wan Kenobi fan fiction. (How is triumph different from winning, anyway?)
p. 196. "Racial and class superiority, accrual of money and power at the expense of others, yearning for popularity and recognition, these normal marks of human life, are the opposite of the mindset of those who have understood and experience the Cross."
One might more aptly say that these are things that normal humans grow out of when they grow up emotionally. Christianity is not required, or even useful, for this purpose.
p. 197. "Jesus's death was necessary if God was going to take justice seriously and still love us."
Again, Keller provides no justification for this. Nothing in this chapter actually addresses justice. (My book club friend suggests that Keller might intend "justice" to be the set containing both retribution and forgiveness. Defining justice this way would make sense of Keller's statement, but Keller himself has given no indication of such a definition.)
Keller spends the last several pages of the chapter describing some moving moments of self-sacrifice in fiction, which he then contrasts with the story of Jesus' crucifixion, which he says is much more inspirational and moving because it is true. He appears to be trying merely to convey the appeal of the story, rather than prove any particular point. Perhaps this is a final effort to relieve some prospective converts' visceral aversion (described at the start of the chapter) to the story of the crucifixion.
Next week: In chapter 13, Keller sells the resurrection.
The whole series.
