Religious truth in the light of the book, The Reason for God - Belief
in an Age of Scepticism by Timothy Keller
Let us examine a popular book, The Reason for God, that aims to show that the
Christian faith is a good thing. If we can refute this book then there is no
reason for anybody to consider Christianity.
relativism
Relativism tells you that the truth is whatever you want to believe so your
truth is not my truth. He warns about relativism and how it is hypocritical in
that it says the rule is that nothing is really right or wrong so it takes a
razor to the throat of those who say morality is real. "Relativists exempt
themselves from their own razor" by claiming and acting as if they are right.
"Relativity relativises itself" says Berger who notes that we cannot be
relativist all the way and of course relativists cherry-pick relativism and
often do believe in morals after all. It is a concern that relativism could be a
symptom of people refusing to do the hard work in getting at moral truth. As we
progress through our examination of Keller, he is himself relativist for his
morals do not make any sense. What would you expect if he is a real Christian?
However at least it is good that he says truth is truth whatever we want to
think. There is no point in worrying about religion being true if relativism is
true! Let us see how he sees affairs of the spirit!
religion
Noting that many today think religious faith is dangerous and silly, Keller says
that a sceptic may have faith in some form or another lurking away behind their
reasoning. He says that sceptics see themselves as unbiased when they reject
religious faith as untrue but in fact they are talking from a belief or faith
position. They have faith that the experts have informed them right that the
religion lacks credibility. Keller says they already have faith that there
cannot just be one religion that is right. He points out that those who say that
each one has to decide moral truth for himself is an statement of faith for not
all agree with it and you cannot prove to anybody that they should guide
themselves instead of taking guidance.
If Keller is right then surely it warns us how faith can block you from seeing
the truth whatever that is!
Keller agrees with critics of religion that "one of the main barriers to world
peace is religion, and especially the major traditional religions with their
exclusive claims to superiority. It may surprise you that though I am a
Christian minister I agree with this. Religion, generally speaking, tends to
create a slippery slope in the heart." He goes on to say that they think they
are right and that leads to them working against and dividing themselves from
those who think differently and soon they spiral down even to oppression or
violence against them. He goes on to say that any attempt to outlaw religion,
condemn religion as bad, or to pretend they are all as good as one another are
not solutions and indeed only make it worse. His argument is that religion still
is a better option than secularism or anything else even though it has a dark
side for the simple reason that religion does not and cannot just go away. The
persistence of religion is not a reason to keep out of secularism. It is a
reason to get involved. The plague had to be battled against no matter how
persistent or powerful or prevalent it was.
Christians claim that the worst intolerance and warmongering and persecuting
ever, was carried out by people who believed that religion necessarily led to
bigotry. They say that the idea that religion and bigotry and intolerance all
went together hand in hand led unbelievers to persecute religion (page 5, The
Reason for God). But if religion really and necessarily leads to such evils then
is it intolerance and warmongering to outlaw religion? Not in principle but in
practice it is unnecessary to ban religion. Had those who persecuted religion
been more confident in their own philosophies and adept at popularising them
they would not have needed to persecute religion. It was because they didn't
believe strongly enough in their own secularism and naturalistic philosophy and
were scared religion might be true that they persecuted. When one religion
contradicts the other in fundamental matters, it is clear that it is religion
more than unbelief that should lead to insecurity and doubt and violence.
Belief in God certainly and necessarily implies that intolerance is a duty in
relation to sceptics and unbelievers. If there is no God looking after people,
then it is plainly evil and wrong to hurt them. It isn't so bad if there is a
God who can intervene and mend things. Religionists claim that unbelievers can
reason that it is okay to hurt people - that because there is no God they can do
what they want even if it hurts others. But can the unbelievers reason that way?
If they do they are being twisted. They are actually unreasoning. If there is no
God we have to step in and help. We have to either help or not help so why not
help? We are still involved anyway.
He also writes, "If we get our identity from our ethnicity or socioeconomic
status, then we have to feel superior to those of other classes and races" (page
168). So the real culture war as he says is inside us - in our hearts. He should
mention religious identity. Religion really should disappear for it is something
extra to cause identity troubles over as if there is not enough already.
one true faith?
Some Christians claim that Christianity is not a religion for it is based on
obeying God out of gratitude whereas in religion you obey God out of fear (page
180, The Reason for God). But even those who deny that we must do good works and
obey God to earn salvation and say we have his love just the way we are fear
reprimands and chastisements from him if they do not live as he asks. They argue
that sin has hideous consequences other than punishment so it is all very
daunting.
Is it arrogant to teach that your religion is right and to try and convert
others to it? John Hick would say yes. He would say this because there are
people just as clever as you who believe different things and who will never
convert. He would say that you are arrogant for insisting that you are right
when others as clever as you if not more believe that you are wrong.
Christians reply as follows. They say that if you assume you can't tell which
faith is true, you are making a religious act of faith that God has not
established any true faith or that he has let the evidence disappear if he has
(page 12, The Reason for God). But it is not necessarily religious. It is not
religious or an act of faith if you think there is no God. You put faith in
persons not in facts. Also, it is more in tune with tolerance to hold that there
is no faith that can be known as true. But Christians will reply that if a faith
is the one true faith, it is hardly tolerant to it to say that there is no one
true faith. But the fact remains that we consider things true based on what
experts say. This is true of religion as in everything else.
Christians say that it is intolerance to accuse people of arrogance for saying
they have the one true faith. Christians say that if we can't call our faith the
true faith because there are others who say it is wrong who are smarter than us
or as smart, then we contradict ourselves if we say that there is no true faith
when others as clever as us if not more say there is.
Consider this. We have to say there is a true faith or there is not. The
assumption that there is not is the least narrow. The assumption that there is
not is the least dangerous for we clearly cannot depend on religious experts to
correctly inform us what the true faith is.
Religion says that if you assume that there is no true faith, that is an act of
religious faith. Many religionists that say that it is faith, hope to persuade
us that since we assume a religious faith no matter what we do, we ought to
assume what they assume. They indicate that we should assume that there is a
true faith and that this true faith is their version of faith or both.
If we want a true faith, we should pick the one that is the most tolerant. And
this would naturally be the view that the true faith is that there is no true
faith only human strivings towards truth and that all faiths have value.
is evil pointless and therefore proof against God?
One reason truth matters is that without it we are at the mercy of evil and
may not know what it is.
Another complaint made by Christians against unbelievers in the existence of a
loving God is that they assume that much evil and suffering is pointless. The
unbelievers contend that a God who can stop pointless evil but who lets it
happen would be evil. So the Christian response is that just because we see evil
and suffering or some of it as pointless does not mean that it really is
pointless (page 23, The Reason for God).
Some Christians say that evil is not proof that God is a fiction but it can be
considered evidence that he is not real. Other Christians often claim that evil
and suffering isn't evidence against the existence of an all-powerful and
all-loving God (page 23, The Reason for God). Keller points out how some worry
about God and evil co-existing or not as a philosophical question while others
take it very personally and consider it offensive if anybody says God has the
right to let their baby suffer. Some people I would add look at the question if
evil can happen if there really is a good God both philosophically or
personally.
Keller objects to those who think some evil is pointless and thus makes God
unlikely to be real that they are assuming it is pointless when they cannot know
that. I would object to people saying that evil can be pointless and then saying
that makes God unlikely. It does not make him unlikely it makes him impossible.
The word unlikely is itself evil for it is watering down the evil. It makes no
sense to say, "If all evil were pointless that would refute God." The quantity
is not what matters. It is the principle. It is cruel to worry about quantities
and it is simply clinical and psychopathic.
Evil looking pointless does not mean it is. So Keller observes. But evil looking
pointless COULD mean it is. And what can we do but assess it by how it looks? If
a baby suffers pointlessly you are being unfair to that baby by saying it may
have a point. You are not the one suffering so nothing gives you the right to
say that or even think it. It is really up to the experiencer to judge and those
who say their suffering is pointless should be respected and they need you to
agree with them. That is part of rapport and compassion and empathy.
But think of it this way. Should you look at it as pointless? Those who say yes
are really telling you not to notice or see if evil is pointless but to think it
has a point and then try to bring good out of it. Do not be mistaken: they are
advocating that you be manipulated. It is right to work to bring good about in
spite of evil. It is wrong to only do this because you think good comes out of
evil or can do. There is more courage and committment in doing the right thing.
The person who can create good in spite of evil is stronger than the person who
thinks evil produces good with some help.
Those who say evil refutes God may say that if you look inside a kennel and
don't see a dog then it is reasonable to assume there is no dog inside. Evil is
the kennel and God is the dog. The kennel is empty of God. But Keller says it
depends on what you expect. If you are looking for a small insect and don't see
one then it is unreasonable to assume there is none inside (page 24, The Reason
for God). God could be a small part working away within the evil to give it
flaws so that it will die away and let good come back.
But the analogy doesn't apply. It indicates that evil and suffering are minor
things like the insects so their existence would not refute the love of God. The
analogy is evil when applied to God. To honour God it is necessary to have some
degree of coldness towards human suffering. Those who do not develop the
coldness are acting in spite of their religion and not because of it. Religion
based on God is evil.
If evil is not pointless it still looks pointless. Our senses are programmed to
make that perception the natural one and it's a struggle to see it differently.
God can give us light to prevent us perceiving evil as pointless. In other
words, he could remind you that you don't know it all so it may not be as
pointless as it looks. Perceiving evil as pointless is a pointless evil!
Religion says God can bring good out of evil. But that still makes the evil
pointless. Just because somebody can work to bring good out of evil does not
mean that the evil is in some sense valuable. It is because the evil is vile and
shouldn't happen that it is necessary to turn it to good. However it seems
wisest to say it never is turned to good but good is made stronger than it.
If we have the right to see evil as pointless, if we have the right to our
opinion at all we have this right, then clearly we have the right not to believe
in God. Christianity is clear that it is a duty to believe in God. That by
default makes it a bigoted religion and it is morally dubious.
To teach that evil has a point is to teach something really silly. Evil by its
nature can't be useful. Evil by its nature is a Trojan Horse so its good results
could be in fact evil. It is not good to get cured of terminal cancer if you can
now blow up the world in a nuclear war. To teach that evil has a point is to
condone the evil. If God is right to hurt or let somebody hurt Amy then hurting
her was not evil but good. We should follow God's example.
Free will's importance is blown out of all proportion by believers in God so
that they see it as a gift from God and the reason we can see there is a God
despite how rife evil is. They blame evil on the misuse of free will by man. But
free will only matters now this moment for we cannot change the choices of the
past or know what we will choose in the future. It is not worth the destruction
it causes for in the big picture it amounts to very little relevant or practical
free will. It is not free will then that does evil except in the present moment.
It is how we have no free will to undo it. It is too minor to help with the
contradiction between God and God's making evil or letting us be evil.
Incredibly Keller quotes CS Lewis with approval when Lewis said that evil
refuting God and supporting atheism was just too simple to be believable. One
reason Lewis said that is that God letting suffering happen does not mean God
thinks suffering ought to happen - in fact it is because we know God is love
that we should see suffering as that which ought to be stopped and healed. There
is nothing too simple about saying that evil is so bad that it refutes the love
of God.