My evangelical pen-pal "dared" me to read a book called "The Reason for God." The book jacket promises that the author "singlehandedly dismantles" every major objection to warmed-over neo-fundamentalist Christian orthodoxy. Singlehandedly dismantles! Wow! So I start reading this book, half-expecting my objections to be dismantled. Singlehandledly. By a guy who, it turns out, can't even get his head around the objections.
Spoiler alert: he fails epically. His efforts should only be expected to impress committed Christians who seek to allay their own lukewarm doubts, and perhaps a few non-Christians with malfunctioning baloney-detection systems.
There are really too many things wrong with this book to do it justice in a blog post, and my above-mentioned pen-pal can expect a more thoughtful and respectful response. But I have a deep-seated need to make fun of religious apologetics. So below, I offer you a flippant summary of Part 1, "The Leap of Doubt."
Critics allege: There can’t be just one true religion.
Keller responds: Yes, there can.
Critics allege: How could a good God allow suffering?
Keller responds: It builds character. But don’t worry; Jesus feels your pain.
Critics allege: Christianity is a straitjacket.
Keller responds: Freedom is slavery; slavery is freedom. Ta-da! Who’s in the straitjacket now?!?
Critics allege: The Church is responsible for so much injustice.
Keller responds: The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. But it’s not a moral improvement program. Jesus invented compassion and all the values people use to critique Christianity, so you do not have your own grounds from which to critique Christianity anyway.
Critics allege: How can a loving God send people to Hell?
Keller responds: All wrongdoing must be punished. People who don’t believe in Hell just want to indulge their desire to sin without being accountable to anyone.
Critics allege: Science has disproved Christianity.
Keller responds: Richard Dawkins is SO mean. The existence of religious scientists like Francis Collins disproves his entire argument about the incompatibility of science and religion. Let’s draw the boundaries between science and religion here where I want them; then there will be no need for conflict between the two.
Critics allege: You can’t take the Bible literally.
Keller responds: Don’t get too caught up in controversies and those supposed contradictions; they’re like the shallow end of the pool. You’re better off diving right in off the deep end.
That's basically it. He even used a pool analogy in that last chapter in pretty much exactly that same way.
Spacesocks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sad; after your opening paragraph, I half expected the arguments to be good. I keep sort of hoping that the fundamentals aren't full of it, because when someone is passionate about something, you kind of want it to pan out for them. But there's no gold in their pan of rationality. Kindness, compassion, and humbleness I understand, but they've chosen to complicate these feelings into supernatural abstractions and euphoric worshipping. I mean, come on. It's simpler than that, and if they simplified, then the world would be clearer and more open, giving them space to practice that compassion to their hearts content.
whoa...I didn't write that comment.
Was it you, earflaps? retrosweater?
Yeah, the sad thing is, the author does come off as a well-meaning guy, but his "arguments" just come off as sugarcoating for morally and rationally indefensible beliefs. All I've really done here is melt away the sugarcoating.
I think the renewal of the evangelical church to church more interactive approach led to more young people to the house of prayer
Post a Comment