I have been challenged by Tom to do a theist-atheist reading challenge: he will read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins if I'll likewise read "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller. Well, he's cheating slightly by listening to the audio CD of the book. And I'm cheating more than slightly by watching Tim talk about his book on youtube: Authors@Google: Tim Keller - it's an hour long.
Here's how it goes:
Tim starts off saying atheists need to understand the reasons for God because Christian numbers are growing (in Korea and China) even as their technology levels increase (which he counts as evidence science does nothing to reduce faith) and atheists therefore need to respect religion or there will be trouble.
Is that a good reason to respect something? That it's growing? Let's picture Tim living in Germany about 70 years ago...
The Nazi movement is growing - Tim could even point to it's increasing popularity in places like Italy, England and Spain. I'm sure Tim would be advocating we show respect to Nazis 'or there will be trouble'.
Fuck that shit.
I will respect something if it deserves respect. Call me eccentric, but I have a problem with people who are into human sacrifice. I don't know what it is, but I just get all twitchy around folk who like to drink what they believe is human blood and eat what they believe is human flesh. Even the ones who are into the symbolic eating and drinking of human stuff are somewhat disturbing.
Before he gets to the 3rd reason, he elaborates a bit on the personal - we are more likely to believe what our chums believe so that we'll be accepted by them.
Fair enough. We're all sheep. Is that a reason for God?
Tim now talks about how an atheist might say to him, "If you'd been been brought up on Madagascar, you wouldn't be a Christian." Tim says the atheist would likely have different views if he'd been born there too.
Forgive me, but isn't he arguing for the atheist side now? ie: what we believe is based on our culture and not some universal truth. Anyway...
Tim gets to his last and 3rd reason: Oh, wait, he's split the last reason into 3 rungs, which he assures us we will climb:
1st rung: you realise it takes as much faith to disbelieve as to believe.
2st rung: you realise it takes more faith to disbelieve than to believe.
3rd rung: you realise you can reason to a point probability, but it takes personal commitent to believe.
Is anyone else feeling a woozy at this point? "Just relax while I repeatedly count to three... one, two... you're feeling very sleepy... when you wake up you will have a burning desire to go to any good book store near you..."
Seriously, does any of this strike you as cutting edge reasoning?
Anyway, he recommends we read his book where he goes into more detail (although I suspect that means even more steps of 3 to be counted). He quickly assures us this is not because he wants to sell his book. Or is it? Well he hopes it isn't.
Er... we're supposed to takes lessons on the reason for God from a guy who doesn't even know whether he's trying to shaft us into buying his new book or not?
Tim now goes into more detail about the 1st rung (you realise it takes as much faith to disbelieve as to believe): "All of the arguments that purport to prove there is no God, fall flat... If there's no way to prove there is no God..."
Wait for it folks...
"...and therefore there is a God..."
It's about 14:15 on the youtube video, check it out. Notice how he says it off-hand, as if he's saying something Universally obvious like "water is a liquid at room temperature". This is such a cheap mind-control trick. Watch any Derren Brown show and you'll see him do similar stuff.
"... then to live as if there's no God is an act of faith..."
Jesus Fucking H Christ. What can I say? I would say, 'you must be a halfwit to go for this idiocy', but clearly you don't.
"...Follow me?"
Most of the audience are probably in a trance by now and are re-living the moment they got a really bad Chinese burn in the playground at lunchtime. When they wake up they'll suddenly feel it's totally reasonable to sacrifice humans to gods.
He now starts to list all the efforts to disprove God that failed. 1) If there's evil in the world there can't be a nice God. Tick. 2) If there was a God how could his believers have done so much evil in the world? Tick. Gets in the false notion that atheism 'created' Stalin and Pol Pot. Tick. 3) It's impossible to know for certain if there is a God or not. Tick (his answer is a 'clever': it's impossible to know that it's impossible to know).
Hmm, he's starting to convince me I'm a gnostic atheist and not an agnostic atheist after all. Or am I?
Now he says that if we insist the burden of proof lies with the claimant that in itself is a massive leap of faith. His reasoning - because if God is not within the Universe, then we don't have to prove his existence.
Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Okay... Russians went up into space and declared they didn't find God. The only way Hamlet (us) would know about the existence of Shakespeare (God) is if he wrote something about himself into the play (the Bible). "And besides that, you can't prove anything... hardly... I could be a butterfly dreaming I'm man. The world could have come into existence 5 minutes ago... see, the philosophers know... you can't prove anything."
So the argument continues - if you can't prove there's no God, and you live your life as if there's no God, you have to admit that's a risk.
Fancy a Pascal's Wager anyone? They should market that as a biscuit, honestly. Tea and chocolate covered Pascal's Wager. Yum Yum.
OK, Tim, seeings as you can't prove anything... How about I invent a story where we were created by a supernatural underwear pervert (and, Tim, I have a feeling he specifically created you in his image)? This underwear pervert says 'if you don't wear your underwear on your head, I will strike you down with eternal pustulance'.
Tim, you can't PROVE the Supreme Underwear Pervert doesn't exist, so if you don't wear your underwear in the Holy way, you're taking an almighty risk.
(It's at this point that Christains claim I am just being silly whereas they are trying to be serious, and because they are trying to be serious they must be taken seriously, no?)
Apparently, if you're with Tim on this bullshit, you've hit rung 1 on the way to God-bothering. If not - you're not even on rung 1. See how he's making it sound like bad thing. "Oh man, you haven't even made it to rung 1 - unlucky buddy. Keep working at it."
I think we'll leave rung 2 until tomorrow. I bet you can't wait.
Friday, April 25, 2008
"The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
"His reasoning - because if God is not within the Universe, then we don't have to prove his existence."
Must... keep... head... from exploding!
Timothy Leary didn't cause me this much pain.
Keller. German for "Cellar". A dark and silent place most of the time - like poor Timmy's mind.
"What's that Lassie? Timmy fell into the Circular Logic Vortex?"
"The Reason for God" by Breakerslion. So shamelessly lying tribal elders could retain control over young bucks that would otherwise have poked their eyes out and skull fucked them. The End.
Ok, I'm out.
So, wait. You're comparing the rise of Christianity in a country like China, where Christians are being persecuted and put to death, to the rise of Nazism in Germany? And you wonder why some people have a hard time taking you seriously.
Stop rubbing it in, I stopped sacrificing babies a long time ago Simon! Wait, oh, you meant Jesus--who sacrificed Himself for disgusting humanity.
You know, if God doesn't exist and a theory proves that (he he) why get so worked up? Nobody gets intense about little green Martians who want to dominate the world.
My site is now officially cooler than yours, I can die well now.
Gummby, please try to read what I said. The point I was making was that if good reason for respecting something is simply because it is growing and popular then in pre-war Germany Tim would have respected the Nazis.
There must be other reasons for respecting something, surely. ie: what the growing movement actually represents. But Tim didn't tell atheists to respect Christianity on the basis of their good works.
The reason people get worked up about it, Doxologica, is that ether are billions of people who fall for this nonesense - yourselves included.
The point I was making was that if good reason for respecting something is simply because it is growing and popular then in pre-war Germany Tim would have respected the Nazis.
I understood your point. I just don't think it was Keller's point. And your statement that he would support the rise of the Nazis borders on slanderous. I don't think that's the point he's making. Growth could be good, or it could be cancerous. You have to look at the circumstances.
P. S. Haven't had time to watch the YouTube video yet, but the audio messages that were the basis for the book can be found here.
Topics include:
Why does God allow suffering in the world?
How could a loving God send people to Hell?
Why isn’t Christianity more inclusive?
How can one religion be “right” and the others “wrong”?
Why have so many wars been fought in the name of God?
Simon said: Call me eccentric, but I have a problem with people who are into human sacrifice. I don't know what it is, but I just get all twitchy around folk who like to drink what they believe is human blood and eat what they believe is human flesh. Even the ones who are into the symbolic eating and drinking of human stuff are somewhat disturbing.
*Yawn.*
The charge of cannibalism has been floating around almost as long as Christianity has been in existence. Here's Athenagoras' answer to the charge of cannibalism (taken from here).
35. Since this is our character, what man of sound judgment would say that we are murderers? For you cannot eat human flesh until you have killed someone. If their first charge against us is a fiction, so is the second. For if anyone were to ask them if they had seen what they affirm, none of them would be so shameless as to say he had.
Moreover, we have slaves: some of us more, some fewer. We cannot hide anything from them; yet not one of them has made up such tall stories against us. Since they know that we cannot endure to see a man being put to death even justly, who of them would charge us with murder or cannibalism? Who among our accusers is not eager to witness contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those organized by you? But we see little difference between watching a man being put to death and killing him. So we have given up such spectacles. How can we commit murder when we will not look at it, lest we should contract the stain of guilt? What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? For the same person would not regard the fetus in the womb as a living thing and therefore an object of God's care, and at the same time slay it, once it had come to life. Nor would he refuse to expose infants, on the ground that those who expose them are murderers of children, and at the same time do away with the child he has reared. But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it.
...and that is just tragic that people believe in a God that rescued them and make it their aim in life to please Him by the same self-sacrificial love that He displayed on the Cross. If there has to be some kind of your self-designated delusion in the world, wouldn't you like that better than jihad?
Is it reason to say that some kind of objective creature consciousness turned a reptile into a bird? I wonder what trial and error looked like for transitional "reptirds". I think I can hear evolutionary scientists adding another million years to the pot. :)
Since we reached the conflict stage so soon Simon, are we friends yet?
Gummby: "I just don't think it was Keller's point. And your statement that he would support the rise of the Nazis borders on slanderous."
At the beginning of the video, Keller says that because of the growing force of religion (and securalism) in the world, non-believers need to understand why people believe so we can all get along. He also says people like Dawkins etc should show respect to religion for the same reason.
IFthe fact something is becoming stronger is a reason for us to show respect to it, then Keller would have to show respect for the Nazis if he was around in the 1930s.
I didn't say Keller would support the Nazis.
I also didn't say Christians are cannibals.
Me: "Call me eccentric, but I have a problem with people who are into human sacrifice. I don't know what it is, but I just get all twitchy around folk who like to drink what they believe is human blood and eat what they believe is human flesh. Even the ones who are into the symbolic eating and drinking of human stuff are somewhat disturbing."
Christians believe Jesus was sacrificed to atone for their "sins" - no?
from your fav wikipedia:
"The beliefs of most denominations of Christianity hinge upon a single, specific human sacrifice: that of the Christ. Most Christians believe, at least nominally, that in order to gain access to paradise in the afterlife each individual person must somehow become a partaker in that all-important human sacrifice for the atonement of their personal sins. Some Christians, including Orthodox and Roman Catholics, believe they participate in the sacrifice of Calvary through the Eucharist which they believe is really the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Many Protestants, however, reject this, and rather believe that the bread and wine of communion are merely symbolic, trusting that it is their faith in Christ's finished work on the cross that atones for their sins."
doxologica: "Is it reason to say that some kind of objective creature consciousness turned a reptile into a bird? I wonder what trial and error looked like for transitional "reptirds". I think I can hear evolutionary scientists adding another million years to the pot. :)"
Er... I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Like I said - I don't usually have scientific debates with people who are groovy with human sacrifice.
"Since we reached the conflict stage so soon Simon, are we friends yet?"
You're just desperate to get into my Behold Insanity list.
Sorry. I guess I read it like this:
"Call me eccentric, but I have a problem with people who are into human sacrifice. I don't know what it is, but I just get all twitchy around folk who like to drink what they believe is human blood and eat what they believe is human flesh. Even the ones who are into the symbolic eating and drinking of human stuff are somewhat disturbing."
cannibal: one that eats the flesh of its own kind (Merriam-Webster online).
We believe in one sacrifice: that Jesus willingly laid down his life to pay for sins. Rather like someone laying down his life for a friend.
Here's more of what the Bible says about his sacrifice.
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins...
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Heb 10:1-4,11-14, ESV)
So Jesus death did (and does) something all the animal sacrifices could never do: take away sins. All that is required of us is repentance from those sins and faith (trust) in Jesus. Those who don't do that, according to the gospel of John, are "condemned already."
Douglas Adams said in an interview that he was into Christianity in a big way as a child. Then the more he learned about the world the less Christianity made sense. Finally he found himself thinking 'this is just nonesense'.
I can't disagree with him. I know you have this complex story worked out with all the awkward questions supposedly answered, but to me it just doesn't make any sense.
Jesus was 'sacrificed'. Not like men are sacrificed in war. He was sacrificed to appease a god. All you need is some dudes dressed in black robes, a sacrificial dagger and some spooky music and you got yourself a Hammer House of Horror movie.
Except that in his case, he was put to death by the state of Rome, who unjustly sacrificed him for political expediency (being afraid of the Jews and wanting to make them happy), the religious leaders, who hated him because he was from God and they weren't (Jesus even says they are following the Devil), and the mob, who was so incensed that the Messiah wasn't delivering them from Roman occupation that they chose a murderer to be set free and told Pilate to crucify him.
But the larger issue is this: when you think you're a good person, it doesn't make sense. It's only when you think of yourself as a sinner, and realize how much you've violated God's law, and how holy He is, that you can understand the sacrifice in the right way. Only sinners need a savior.
Although that part of the story sounds quite sensible, a LOT of people were 'unjustly sacrificed' by the Romans. That doesn't really single Jesus out from the crowd.
When you starting talking about payment for sins and stuff then I start to picture you looking like Christopher Lee.
I understand that you have invested so much of who you are into your belief, Gummby. So obviously the consequences for releasing that belief would be huge for you. That is why you desperately hang to it even though it is silly.
I'm open. If a bunch of scientists are looking through their telescope and think they see something God-like, I'll be all ears.
With you, on the other hand, if some science contradicts what you believe, you will close your ears to it. And you believe you're defending your faith by doing so.
Doesn't that make me more open mined (and reasonable) than you?
Simon says:
Although that part of the story sounds quite sensible, a LOT of people were 'unjustly sacrificed' by the Romans. That doesn't really single Jesus out from the crowd.
I don't disagree. By itself, it means nothing. It's only when you combine it with all the miracles, fulfilled prophecy, etc., that it means anything.
When you starting talking about payment for sins and stuff then I start to picture you looking like Christopher Lee.
I understand that you have invested so much of who you are into your belief, Gummby. So obviously the consequences for releasing that belief would be huge for you. That is why you desperately hang to it even though it is silly.
Funny. That's precisely how I feel about you, my friend.
I'm open. If a bunch of scientists are looking through their telescope and think they see something God-like, I'll be all ears.
With you, on the other hand, if some science contradicts what you believe, you will close your ears to it. And you believe you're defending your faith by doing so.
Doesn't that make me more open mined (and reasonable) than you?
I know being "reasonable" is important to you--you've mentioned it on many occasions. It may be tempting to think, given what you've said above, that you're perfectly reasonable, and I'm perfectly bonkers.
Yet, I remember asking you what evidence would be sufficient for you to believe in God. Your answer? "That's putting the cart before the horse. Show me the evidence and I'll see how it stands up." That was about two years ago. At the end of the day, if we want to talk evidence, you've dismissed truckloads of it, too.
Gummby, I read and read and read and tons and tons of supposed 'evidence', I've shown the flaws in it (not bigging myself up as I don't think its all that hard to do), I've had the evidence preached at me in family sized containers.
Even if you accept that the Bible is some kind historically accurate document, even if you accept that it's all true, the logic of it does not add up.
Christianity does not provide a meaningful purpose for our existence - at best, we are sweepers, sweeping the eternally dust-free floor just because a god supposedly wills it. What is the point?
'Meaning' in the Christian dictionary means 'feeling all lovely and happy and comforted without really knowing why'.
So even if we don't question the Bible's accuracy, it's still doesn't make sense, no matter how many bits of scripture you quote at me to explain things - it's basic premise is fundamentally flawed.
You've tried and tried and tried again to show me the 'truth', as if the nonesense will make sense if repeated often enough.
When you ask a Christian, 'What is the piont of existing' their only reply can be 'becuase it's better than not existing'. Another one of those 'common sense' statements is is assumed to be true in the peasant-like mind of a god-believer - like: gays are evil, Hitler is evil, love is good, charity is good, swearing is bad, modesty is good... etc...
In reasoning terms, it's fluff. Simplistic. Childish. Fluff.
Gummby, I read and read and read and tons and tons of supposed 'evidence', I've shown the flaws in it (not bigging myself up as I don't think its all that hard to do), I've had the evidence preached at me in family sized containers.
Oh, I get it now. When I argue against evidence or logic, it's "closing my ears to it," but when you do it, it's "showing the flaws." Thanks for clearing that up.
There's a difference between simplistic and simple, by the way. Sin is evil. Simple. So simple even my four year old can understand it. That's why Jesus had to die - to pay for sins. Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand - you're way smarter than any of my kids.
Oh, and as far as the meaning of life question, are you sure your objection is one of logic, and not simply "I don't like the answer, so I'm going to keep looking?" The Reformers of the 16th Century said the chief end of man was to "glorify God and serve Him forever." What's your answer, again (besides "42")?
"The Reformers of the 16th Century said the chief end of man was to "glorify God and serve Him forever." What's your answer, again (besides "42")?"
My answer is I don't have one for you. But at least I'm honest enough to admit it.
Your faith is a liar.
To glorify one who does not need gloryfiying is a pointless act. To serve one who doesn't need serving is a pointless act.
Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand, Gummby.
Christianity is nihilistic, under the proper definition of the word.
Gummby, answer me this simple question - what is the point of doing something that doesn't need doing?
Simon: I appreciate you trying to disabuse me of my nihilism. But your question seems rather foolish to me.
What is the point of driving with the windows down if I don't need to? What is the point of smelling a flower if I don't need to? I could go on, but I won't bore you.
Here's a little thought for you, though. For someone like yourself, who hates this being who doesn't exist, even Heaven would be like Hell (although Hell will be far worse than you can think or imagine).
But heaven is filled with creatures extolling the virtues of God. "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty." "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain." Someone who hates God would hate it there, too.
Set aside your prejudice (if you can), and think about a being powerful enough to create the universe. If such a being exists, whether he needs praise or not, he would certainly be worthy of praise. That will be a believer's reason for existing. You can say "that's not much of a reason," and my response would be "no, I didn't think you'd think it would be."
Meanwhile, you still have none. I appreciate the "honesty," but it's a little depressing.
"What is the point of driving with the windows down if I don't need to? What is the point of smelling a flower if I don't need to?"
There isn't one. So why is your system any less nihilistic than any other.
If love = meaning then I can say 'I love the Universe' or 'I love existing' and the accusation of nihilism is banished, no?
"Hell will be far worse than you can think or imagine"
So you keep telling me. But there is no evidence for you peasant fairy story or for your god-ystem.
"If such a being exists, whether he needs praise or not, he would certainly be worthy of praise. That will be a believer's reason for existing."
I think the Universe is worthy of praise. That is my reason for existing.
Explain the difference.
The Bible calls that "exchanging the truth of God for a lie," and "worshiping the creature instead of the creator."
It goes on to describe these folks in greater detail.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:28-32, ESV).
That's the difference.
Fine. But that is still nihilistic, by the definition of the word.
Post a Comment