Reasons For God?

So we have looked at a few critiques Keller has for reasons against God, but as my friend Billy pointed out on Facebook, none of these are reasons for God. So, what reasons does Keller offer for belief in God? It must first be noted that Keller doesn't consider these ideas, quite old ones, "proofs" for God. One cannot prove God's existence. One can only offer reasons for believing in God's existence. In this case, Keller says that belief in God makes sense of a few facts of life.

1. Belief in God makes sense of the universe and its fine-tuning for life. The probability figures for life on this planet arising by chance are astronomically low. Billions and billions to one. Just the right combination of nitrogen and oxygen; just the right axis tilt; just the right distance to the sun; just the right atmospheric conditions... All such scientific findings are best explained by the presence of a creator. All of the big atheists take on this argument by saying that there could have been billions and billions of failed universes before this one came about. That's true. The odds are low, but, by definition, that does not mean impossible. So, Keller offers a story (originally Alvin Plantinga's). Suppose you are playing poker and your opponent, who is dealing, keeps turning aces for himself over and over again. Twenty straight times. You accuse him of cheating. He says, "The chances of me turning up aces are billions to one. But for every game of poker there is that chance that it will happen. Given all the universes that could exist where this doesn't happen, there's a chance it will happen in this universe." You can either accept his story or punch him in the nose. The absurdity of the story makes Keller's point: This finely tuned universe is no proof of God, but nobody lives other parts of their lives against such odds.

2. Belief in God makes sense of morality. We have senses of right and wrong that make no sense without an appeal to something beyond culture. One can believe certain practices are wrong and work against them, but unless there is a standard to which such practices are not conforming, then there is no reason to work for what one considers right. Of course, many people live with morals regardless of their strict adherence to religious teaching, but this only strengthens the argument that belief in a creator God whose image is borne in these people makes sense of this situation. Does it prove God's existence? No, but it does make it seem more understanable. Put to another level, what sense does love make in an enlightened culture that knows all processes that have brought humans to this level of development are simply a combination of chance and survival mechanisms? One now sits above these mechanisms and so all emotion is only chance and survival. Can one offer a story that makes sense of love in terms of chance and survival mechanisms? Sure. Does this story capture the essence of love (both friendship and/or romantic) to being human as well as God? That's the question.

3. God gives explanation to the meaning of life. Victor Frankl's chronicles of his time in a Nazi war camp revealed three groups of people in the camps. The first were those who succombed to the enemy and cohorted with them. The second were simply those who gave up and died. The third were those who lived for something beyond themselves. Those in the first two groups were out-survived and out-numbered by those in the third. Frankl's work captures an element of real-life and how we live our lives. What's the meaning? What's the purpose? That there are those who live with meaning and purpose in life--and they are the majority--can best be made sense of with the existence of God. Does this prove God? No. God just makes sense in light of meaning and purpose. (Interestingly, Phyllis Tickle makes the point in "The Great Emergence" that when work became less necessary and people found themselves with much more free time on their hands that purpose decreased. The gap that filled in the void for many of these people? Church. And that wasn't always a good thing!)

So, what do you think of Keller's reasons for believing in God? Which is the most important for you? Which is the strongest/weakest? Why?

Reasons against God?

Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God, is the basis for a lecture he recently gave, which sketched three reasons for God and three faith-filled reasons against God. All of his reasons and critiques are pastorally repackaged versions of older lines of thinking. Today we'll look at the reasons against God. By faith-filled reasons against God, I mean that Keller shows how three classical arguments against God have leaps of faith in them. Here they are:

1. "I can't believe in God because of evil and suffering and no all-powerful, all-good God would allow evil and suffering." Keller says that what this really boils down to is not that there is no reason God would allow evil and suffering, but that the person making the argument does not know what good reason God would have. Keller then offers an illustration. Suppose that I asked you to look in a pup tent and tell me if there are any Saint Bernards in it. You could look quickly and realize whether or not there are Saint Bernards. However, suppose I asked you to look and see if there were any mosquitos. That would be more difficult. Perhaps with the complexity of evil and suffering in our world, reasons for it are more akin to mosquitos, discernible only to a being of infinite intelligence. Saying definitively that no reason exists is a leap.

2. "I can't believe in God because no religion can capture everything about God." The classic picture is of five blind people stumbling upon an elephant and each experiencing a different side of it--the trunk, the body, the tail, the ears, the leg... Each has a different picture of the elephant and each is right, although each is significantly limited. Likewise different religions have different vantage points for God, though none has the full view. To say, however, that no religion captures the truth about God necessarily puts one in the position of being above all the other religions. If one knows that no religion captures the truth about God then one has superceded other religions, which is the very position this person wishes to critique. That's a leap.

3. "I can't believe in God because the Bible says x, and we know that x simply isn't true." Keller offers the example of vengeance being God's and Jesus' words to forgive. While most North Americans will say, "Hooray!", they will scoff at the Bible's teaching against sex outside marriage. On the other hand, some older cultures will readily applaud the Bible's teaching on sexual fidelity, but won't be willing to accept its teaching on forgiveness. How can both cultures be right? Keller says that to deny belief in God because the Bible teaches x shows not only great faith in one's culture, as shown above, but also great faith in one's moment of time. Consider that much of what skeptics and social liberals believe differs from their grandparents. Why should we not expect that our grandchildren won't have the same experience of doubting much of what we think? If we believe that our grandchildren will have the same beliefs, then we believe that our moment has achieved truth and enlightenment. That's a leap.

Instead, Keller suggests that if the Bible's teaching really is from God and that no culture or time has perfectly instituted and activated all of its teaching, then at some point every culture will be offended and disagree with the Bible.

Next week we'll look at ways believing in God helps make sense of some of the most important elements of life, though these elements do not prove God. Until then,
what do you think of these reasons and Keller's critiques?