Keller, however, goes on to make some interesting arguments for God's existence using mainly logic or reason. This is not one of those books that preaches to the choir, per say, but it really does try to reach across the isle to skeptics and atheists. Unlike "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris -- which I have not read but according to Keller seems more interested in mocking Christians than conversing with them-- Keller approaches readers of all backgrounds with the intend to communicate, not bash.One of the main arguments that Keller starts with is that Doubt itself requires an act of faith. It's very easy to dismiss a Christian's faith as standing on a belief without evidence, but Keller quickly flips the script and shows a mirror to the skeptic. That's not all the book offers, but just a launching pad that then grows into other points. He then addresses some of the more common attacks held against Christianity (such as world suffering, the question of hell and the exclusivity of Christianity). He touches on points of morality as a source for God's existence, and argues that the dis-unity among religions cannot mean that all religions point to the same truth.
I didn't finish reading the whole book yet. I read about two-thirds before I had to return it to the library. However, this is a book I'd like to purchase and read again more thoroughly as a way of approaching both people of faith and those who find no reason to believe in God.
2 comments:
"He touches on points of morality as a source for God's existence, and argues that the dis-unity among religions cannot mean that all religions point to the same truth."
I understand that he is approaching the issue from a Christian point of view, but it sounds to me like he is almost arguing for deism rather than existence of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Yes, much like "The Case for a Creator", the argument cannot be made about a specific God (the God of the Bible) merely through accepting that a god exists. But the next step in logic is: if there is indeed a God, would he not want to communicate with His people? In other words, if God is willing to create people and not just things... would God not in fact be a personal creator?
So from there it becomes easier to understand why God would provide His word through what we now know as the Bible. Of course, when the playground for accepting a deity is wide open, we can simply ask why the Bible and not the Koran?
For that, we have to put the two books side-by-side and compare whose claims are most verified. I'm not a scholar of either book, and I know very little of the Koran itself, though I do know that the Koran stems from the Bible in its history and claims, so we know that the Bible came first. That, already gives it an advantage.
The next question is, why not the Bible AND the Koran? The answer is simple in that case. Because their claims of salvation are completely different. The Bible always talks about salvation through Faith, while the Koran speaks of salvation through specific deeds.
If God is only one God, he would not provide different standards by which He accepts His people.
Post a Comment