Reddit Reddit reviews The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

We found 47 Reddit comments about The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Christian Books & Bibles
Christian Evangelism
Evangelism
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Riverhead Books
Check price on Amazon

47 Reddit comments about The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism:

u/LordGrac · 524 pointsr/Christianity

After reading through your responses here, I feel the need to clarify for you exactly what an argument is and what it can do. You list examples like evolution and heliocentrism and ask how those might affect one's faith. In reality, these arguments do nothing to disprove God, and are in fact separate issues entirely.

The way you've been speaking so far, it seems like the arguments you're assuming are these:

  • The church believed the sun revolved around the earth
  • The earth in fact revolves around the sun
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    and

  • Some Christians say evolution is false
  • Evolution is not false
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    Do you see the leaps here? The statement "God does exist" is not a logically valid inference from these arguments. They, in fact, cannot say anything about whether or not God exists; such is simply not a possibility in the premises. What they really can do is this:

  • The church believed the sun revolved around the earth
  • The earth in fact revolves around the sun
  • Therefore, the church was wrong

    and

  • Some Christians believe evolution is false
  • Evolution is not false
  • Therefore, some Christians are wrong

    Now, does "the church was wrong [on this occasion]" and "some Christians are wrong" equate to "God does not exist?" No. It means that it is a logical possibility, yes, but it does mean that is certain or even probable.

    In addition, you'll find that these arguments are not conflicts at all for the vast majority of Christians, especially those who frequent r/Christianity. This is why:

  1. It is possible in our theology for the church to be wrong. The church is made up of human beings, and though those human beings have the power of the Holy Spirit, they are still humans and therefore quite capable of sin and being wrong.

  2. The "heliocentrism debate" centered around Galileo is often blown way out of proportion. The issue was how the Church was going to handle someone challenging their authority. Heliocentrism itself was almost a negligible issue, though it was indeed an issue. Additionally, Galileo's proof for heliocentrism was lacking for the science standards of his day (natual philosophy of this time was strongly influence by Aristotle and his deductive method - induction was not considered valid, and heliocentrism relies on induction). See this Catholic.com article on the issue.

    You should also be aware of the philosophical foundation for science. Science is inherently naturalistic, which means that it cannot interact in any way with things outside of nature (related: it is also incapable of 'proving' anything, only math and logic can do that; science can only disprove and assume that which is most probable given the evidence). This includes God, as he exists outside of the universe as we perceive it. Dealing with things outside of nature is the realm of metaphysics, and metaphysics is largely philosophy and logic, not science. Thus, any argument that claims "science has proven God does not exist" is an argument resetting entirely on false beliefs about what exactly science is. This is what others in this thread have been saying.

    Given all that, you'd do well to know exactly what arguments do set out to disprove God - and there are very few of them that do so in a valid way. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theogica, was in the habit of stating a point, giving three positions on this point, and then stating his view which was contrary to the three and then arguing against the three first points. In his section on "Whether God Exists?" he only lists two reasons; this is because very few of the arguments that claim to disprove God can actually logically do so. These are the arguments he lists:

  • God is an all-good, all-powerful being
  • An all-good, all-powerful being would be capable of eradicating evil
  • Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful being must eradicate evil
  • Evil exists
  • Therefore, God is either not all-good, not all-powerful, or does not exist
  • The God of the Bible is necessarily all-good and all-powerful, therefore the God of the Bible does not exist

    and

  • Things that were previously explained using God are now explained without God
  • Humanity will continue to find explanations for things now explained with God
  • Therefore, humanity has no need for God to exist
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    Note that these aren't the arguments exactly as he lists them; I've updated them slightly to better reflect how they are used today.

    The second argument is yet another argument making a logically invalid conclusion from the premises. Whether or not mankind needs God to exist is irrelevant to whether or not he actually exists. Thus this argument falls flat.

    The first argument is known as the Problem of Evil, and it has been a huge issue for theists for a very long time. It has not been answered in a way that most theists find existentially satisfying, meaning that no matter how the problem is answered, evil is always a big problem in everyone's life, and it's always hard to understand why God won't just take it away. That said, the Problem of Evil relies entirely on this premise:

  • Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful being must eradicate evil

    We have to ask is that really so? And the answer is, we have no idea if it is or not. It is logically possible that an all-good, all-poweful being could co-exist with evil, even if we don't know how that is possible. Ultimately, this argument is an argument from ignorance, meaning that it relies on the fact that we don't know something to make its claim (The "God of the gaps" argument does the same thing, by the way - it says "Look, we don't know how x or y happen, therefore God"). This is a logical fallacy, and as a result the problem of evil also cannot logically disprove God - though the answer does very little to comfort someone dealing with evil.

    I highly recommend you watch Tim Keller on the Problem of Evil at Google. Tim Keller is a big-name pastor in New York in addition to being a popular apologist (meaning one who defends an intellectual stance - in this case, Christianity).

    I feel it's worth mentioning what is probably the most common argument against theism, and especially Christianity, most especially on the internet. This is the argument:

  • Theists believe things that I find crazy
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    You should be able to tell by now that this argument is not a true argument at all. The conclusion has nothing at all to do with the premise. It sounds crazy to some people that Christians believe in life after death, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist. It sounds crazy to some people that some Christians believe that bread blessed by a priest becomes the body of Christ, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist (a lot of the popular arguments against evolution use this tactic, and are also invalid). This tactic is the one most commonly used by Richard Dawkins.

    Ultimately, that 'argument' fails because it relies entirely on the perception of the individual and has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It merely disguises itself as logic.

    Now, if you really want to read more about why people believe God can logically exist, you want to look into books on apologetics. There are a whole lot of those, as it has been a popular topic for hundreds of years now, but two that are quite accessible and quite strong are The Reason for God by Tim Keller, who I mentioned above, and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, of Narnia fame. These two books deal with how God can logically exist, but there are a wealth of books on other apologetic issues, like how we can trust the Bible to be accurate (Reinventing Jesus is a very good book for this issue).

    Edit: error corrections, some paranthetical statements.
u/likefenton · 11 pointsr/NoFapChristians

C.S. Lewis, a well known Christian author, was once an adamant atheist. He described himself as "the most reluctant convert to Christianity"

From http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/node/48:
"Once, before embarking on a long train ride, Lewis purchased a copy of George MacDonald's book Phantastes. He was surprised by what happened during his reading. Something came off the pages and "baptized his imagination." Although he couldn't put this quality into words at that time, he later came to describe it as holiness."

God does work in these ways to call those he wants to believe in him.

As a Christian who has struggled with atheistic / agnostic ideas in the past, I'd highly recommend Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God". It calmly and rationally shows that it isn't unreasonable to believe in the Christian God.

https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520121396&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god

u/tapeonyournose · 11 pointsr/Reformed

A book that has helped me with your same questions is "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller. His position is that there is much more reason to believe in God than there isn't. I appreciated how he doesn't come across saying, "This is what PROVES Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt!" Instead, he goes through empirical, scientific, and rational evidence that points to a creator. Go check it out. https://smile.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522341268&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god+keller

u/im_mistermanager · 9 pointsr/Christianity
u/sitNspin · 7 pointsr/Christianity

I'm a Presbyterian(PCA) and I would strongly recommend Timothy Keller. I think that you would find him very insightful. You can go here and there are some free sermons. He seems to me to be one of the most rational and intelligent theologians out there, but yea I would strongly advise him. He has also written some books and you can find them on Amazon. The books I would suggest by him are Reason for God, Counterfeit Gods, and the Prodigal God.

u/Frankfusion · 7 pointsr/Christianity

Currently:

Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen

The Reason for God by Tim Keller

Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology by Scott Oliphint

The Defense of the Faith by Cornelius Van Til

Contending with Christianities Critics by Paul Copan, William Lane Craig et al.

Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ by Darell Bock and David Wallace

u/Juniperus_virginiana · 5 pointsr/Christianity

I really am not sure what bait you are holding out, or for whom. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a historical event and belongs in the realm of historians. Science has as much to do with the fact of Christ's resurrection as it does with the creation of an independent nation state in 1776, or with the question of the intrinsic rights of man, etc.

I am not a historian but I would love to refer you to Tim Keller's The Reason for God which has an in depth chapter discussing historical events proving the resurrection of Christ.

u/[deleted] · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

When I converted, I already wanted to believe in God and in Jesus. But what pushed me over the edge to actually believing, and even understanding the Trinity, was reading The Reason For God. It's short and very accessible.

Disclaimer: it's written by a Protestant, but most of it is pretty solid anyway -- you're probably not going to read it and end up a die-hard Protestant

u/Repentant_Revenant · 4 pointsr/TrueChristian

Have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis yet? You mentioned you were interested in apologetics, and this one is practically a staple in the church. If you haven't gotten to it yet, please read it as soon as you can.

Also, check out The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

Tim Keller's entire ministry is about the skepticism we see in the world today. It's important to know that you can be a Christian and be skeptical. Doubt is not the opposite of faith.

The fact that you're doubting means that you're entering into a new phase of your faith - where you hold it up to a high critical standard.

It might not feel like it, but I believe that this is a good thing, and in fact that God allows us to be in a state of doubt for this very reason. Once you've done your research, you'll be much better equipped to talk with non-Christians and with Christians who are struggling with their faith. You'll be better able to help them overcome their doubts.

u/lastnote · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Have you thought about reading any christian theology books? I find reading opposing perspectives and ideas helps to strengthen my own. If I can make a few recommendations...

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Jesus Among Other Gods - Ravi Zacharias

The End of Reason - Zacharias

Christian Apologetics - Norman Geisler

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

I would highly recommend everyone read Wayne Grudem's "Christian Beliefs". It's an abbreviated version of "Systematic Theology". Very short but concise overview of basic christian beliefs.

I can only recommend christian material as I haven't read a lot of other religious text. Christianity is the most relevant religion where I live, so understanding has been helpful in conversing with the religious folks around me.

u/nerdybunhead · 3 pointsr/girlsgonewired

Good question. Thanks for asking! What do you mean when you say
>the requirement of unquestioning faith?

As far as I've been able to tell, the crucial things about Christianity - the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the Bible - are historically well attested. For me, that's the most compelling thing about Christianity, actually - that it makes sense in light of what I see in the observable world. I think some people have maybe an inaccurate perception of what Christianity's about, and that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication when we talk about "science and religion" (which, by the way, I think is somewhat of a false dichotomy).

That was kind of rambly, but I hope it at least began to answer your question. By nature, I'm a fairly analytical (read: doubting Thomas) kind of person, so I appreciate your asking about this.

If you're interested, Tim Keller's The Reason for God has been a helpful book for me as I've thought through these things.

u/rookiebatman · 3 pointsr/TheFacebookDelusion

> If it's a celeb it's fair game.

I didn't see anything specifically about that in the sidebar, and I recently got frustrated about a post being removed in another sub (r/politicaldiscussion) due to vague and counter-intuitive rules (and the mods not being helpful at all in explaining why), so I didn't want to risk it. It's Tim Keller, the author of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

u/GunnerMcGrath · 3 pointsr/Christianity

First of all, I applaud your courage to seek the truth even if it leads you to a place that requires humility. God loves you and is clearly drawing you to himself! The word "faith" in the New Testament means "to be pursuaded by God." He is the one creating the desire and belief in you even as it develops, how cool is that?

Now, in reply to your comment, a lot of people have differing opinions of exactly what a "literal" interpretation even means. My best explanation would be to say that everything that the Bible says happened, actually happened, exactly as it says... regardless of whether the author of the passage actually meant for it to be taken literally.

A simple example:

Most of Jesus' teaching is through parables, or stories that have representative meaning. Sometimes he begins them "Suppose a woman has ten silver coins..." but sometimes he begins them like "There was a man who had two sons." Now, in my view, a literal interpretation of Jesus' teaching would be that this man and his sons actually existed, because of how he phrases it. But there is good reason to believe Jesus is making up this story to illustrate a point, and this would be generally understood by his audience, much like beginning a story "once upon a time" indicates that this is fiction, even though your literal words are saying that this story happened. Think about most fiction you read; rarely if ever does it explicitly state that it is fiction -- usually it just says this stuff happened and you are supposed to understand that it didn't.

So... there are parts of the Bible that are believed by many Bible scholars to have been written with the intent of teaching a principle but not to be a literal, historical record of fact. There are MORE parts of the Bible that are certainly standard written histories, and many of these stories have fantastic and miraculous elements. So I am not saying that you can't take the Bible at face value, because most of it is absolutely meant to be read that way.

But there are parts that are written about the beginning of the world, and for reasons I won't get into explaining here (you can research if you're interested), many who know this stuff better than you or I ever will are convinced that they were written to illustrate the truth that God is the creator of everything, but not written to describe exactly what his specific method and timeline was for creating. Similarly, there are visions people have of their future which are written in an extremely metaphorical way, much like dreams represent true ideas but not literal ones. When I dream of my teeth falling out, it means I'm stressed about something, but not specifically about my teeth falling out. So many of these predictions were not thought to be literal representations even by the people who had the visions or made the predictions.

The good news for you, as a person investigating faith, is that these interpretations do not really have to have significant impact on your journey at the moment. Your focus should be on the love of God for humanity, and the (historically factual/literal) accounts of Jesus' life in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Get to know God and spend time reading the Bible, with the Holy Spirit guiding you, before you draw your line in the sand about what kind of interpretation you insist on being correct. That would be like me placing a million dollar bet on a baseball team to win the world series before I'd ever even seen a baseball game.

You have been given some good book recommendations already. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is an extraordinary book that spends a fair amount of time just pondering logically the likelihood that God exists at all. It gets more specifically into Christianity later in the book.

There are also two books by pastor Timothy Keller that you may enjoy: Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical and The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. These again are more about the arguments for and against God's existence which you may or may not need at this point in your journey.

But of course, the most important of all is simply the Bible. The Gospel of Mark may be a good place to start because it is a historical record of Jesus' life written for the Romans, and therefore explains a lot about the Jewish customs that they would not have understood. But any of the four gospels are a wonderful place to begin.

Enjoy your journey, and I encourage you to take that leap of faith and ask God to show you the truth, even if you are not yet sure he even exists. I would pray such a prayer every day, or every time you begin reading anything about God. He is already drawing you to himself but prayer is a practice that brings our wills into alignment with his, and so when we pray for things that he already wants to do, he tends to show up even more significantly so your faith will grow.

u/Kidnapped_David_Bal4 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Are some of your family members Christian? You could talk to them (certainly if it's your immediate family like mom and dad or siblings). It'd be harder if it's like a cousin or uncle or grandmother, but you probably want someone to talk to who you trust. Do you have friends who are Christian? Maybe just ask them- if this is a big decision in your life, they should hopefully have your back. You might find out that some of your friends are Christian and you didn't even know because they were too intimidated to tell you that and now you made the first move so it's find to talk about it.

If you really want to read something, you could try reading one of the gospels. Maybe Mark? I also think you'd benefit by reading something a little less formal, a little more geared right at you (the gospels have a lot of context and history and previous knowledge that they expect readers to be working with, so either accept that there's stuff that's going over your head and read them anyway or get a study Bible to help). A lot of people recommend Mere Christianity or The Reason for God or others by Tim Keller. I think that's the sort of thing you're looking for.

u/gragoon · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I would recommend Timothy Keller's "The Reason for God" as the author is very good at explaining how Christianity is not a pie in the sky thing. The book is geared to a public that likes logic and is very fact based as Timothy Keller started a rather successful church in NYC that seems to cater mostly to lawyers, doctors and finance people.

u/Verapamil123 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I honestly found The Reason for God to be a good read. It's well written and the author writes with much humility.

u/irresolute_essayist · 3 pointsr/funny

There's full books on apologetics. Honestly some of them are bad. Some good. Same with websites. When I speak of Christian philosophy I mean folks ranging (and ranging in answers!) from Augustine to Aquinas to Kierkegaard. Getting a book on basic historical theology like this one by Alister McGrath (a former atheist with a PHd in both Theology and Biochemistry who has also written apologetic books) would be a good place to start.

I found reading historical theology, and finding how much of what I took granted for what faith was being really modern, to be one of the most helpful things.

The website Seedbed and Reknew have good resources as well with varying answers.

Here's some on the problem of evil.

Article: seedbed--the problem of natural evil

Video: 7 minute seminary--the problem of evil

Alvin Platinga, philosopher Notre Dame, might have somethings you're interested in

But, well, for me, I started reading Christian existentialists like the Kierkegaardian Catholic novelist Walker Percy (which is pretty obtuse of a thing to say). He presents more questions than answers, and I'm a literary guy so you might not be into that.

I will say G.K. Chesterton's Chapter in Orthodoxy "The Ethics of Elfland" was also something which awakened my theological imagination.

And I also think Greg Boyd, one of the only megachurch pastors I can stand to listen to, also has some great resources. His popularization of "Open Theism" theology (that God is subject to time just was we are and knows all possible realities rather than knowing a single determined reality) has been a more popular "theodicy" (answer to how there can be a good God over a world of evil) recently. Here's his website.

Tim Keller's "The Reason for God" is a popular level book which uses everything from New Testament scholarship (like N.T. Wright--who is very good) to evolution's compatibility with Christianity (cf. Francis Collins, a Christian and director of the Human Genome project) to create a popular-level explanation of Christian faith. Each chapter takes a different common question. I don't agree with his take on everything but it's a good place to start.

Over the past 3 years I've also found good conversation on /r/christianity. You may want to search for old posts there and see what folks have to say. You'll find a variety of answers.

u/Righteous_Dude · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I just started reading his book "The Reason For God - Belief In An Age Of Skepticism.".

It seems well-written but I can't comment on the quality of his reasoning yet.

I don't know what you mean by "too fundamental".

u/firebreather27 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Your questions are legitimate and ignoring it is not the way to go. I constantly questions religion and try to learn more, its the only way to stay true to who you are because sometimes belief is NOT a choice. Tell me to believe in unicorns and I just can't Try reading The Reason for God, I'm currently reading stand really like it. Maybe it can answer some questions for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324620669&sr=8-1

u/reformedscot · 3 pointsr/Reformed

I prefer Stott over Lewis, but want to add to your troubles by adding a third option, The Reason for God

u/IRedditbe4 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

We all have doubts. It's part of being human and being a Christian. As you mentioned you are still looking for truth and are open to the idea of theism. I would just recommend a few books for reading that are great intellectual reading about the subject. That being: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
as well as anything by CS Lewis notably [Mere Christianity] (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425281260&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity+cs+lewis) and Screwtape Letters.

All the best in finding truth friend, and although you may doubt Him (even as Apostles, greatest evangelists, martyrs, missionaries also did) I would not advise ruling out Christ just yet.

u/dahackne · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I came here to mention The Reason for God.

u/jrgarciafw · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It sounds like just the thing you are looking for. I would also recommend Tim Keller's Reason for God.

u/DronedAgain · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I suggest a combination of reading:


The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

by Timothy Keller

Luke (NRSV translation)

Read both with an open mind, see what happens.

u/dweb98789 · 2 pointsr/exchristian

> What'd you find on NT?

Unfortunately, almost all that I have read has been from books that I have in person but I'll link some of them:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels - Craig L. Blomberg

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Making the Case for Christianity - Korey Maas, Adam Francisco

The Resurrection Fact - John Bombaro, Adam Francisco


I've also had Dr. Daniel Wallace recommended to me, although I haven't gotten to look into his work much. I know he has some videos scattered on YouTube that can be watched, here is one.

I'd also recommend anything by John Warwick Montgomery!

> Yeah, sure thing. Really, the most damning thing to me is that he only interviewed apologists; the skeptics that he mentions in the book did not have the opportunity to defend themselves there. But here are some sources that I found interesting:

Thank you!


EDIT: Formatting

u/cosmicservant · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

Please don't base such important views on reddit comments. Talk to a pastor, just search church in Google maps and go talk to one. or read books by them Reasons for God by Timothy Keller would be a good read [amazon.com] andor his podcasts [itunes.apple.com] [podbay.fm]

u/justtolearn · 1 pointr/atheism

This book is a lot better than A Case for Christ http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493 , however if you read the god delusion then I would assume you know you can only be agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You cant just be agnostic, however personally I am an atheist because the concept of a soul seems dumb to me.

u/suxer · 1 pointr/atheism

You should switch too, or maybe go for two books.

I recommend Tim Keller's The Reason for God.

u/edric_o · 1 pointr/Christianity

First, don't panic. A lot of people go through this as teenagers and return to Christ later in life. I did.

Second, make sure he knows how much you appreciate the fact that he trusted you with this. Continue to relate to him the same way you always have, because obviously you've been doing it right. The fact that he lost his faith isn't your fault. If it was your fault, he wouldn't have come to you with that information.

Third, have another private talk with him (not right away, but maybe in a week or two) where you ask him to tell you the story of how he became an atheist. Don't argue with him or say much of anything in response. Just listen.

Since he mentioned "science and contradictions", it is 99% likely that he fell for the usual atheist arguments that you find online. It is important that you listen to him in order to find out precisely which arguments persuaded him. Do not attempt to answer those arguments right away. Instead, do your research - and take your time with it - to find Christian apologetics that refute the specific atheist arguments which have persuaded him. Make sure you find good counter-arguments. There's a ton of simplistic nonsense out there.

Finally, after some weeks or months, offer him books or other materials (like website and blog links) that directly counter the atheist arguments which have persuaded him. Again, make sure these are high quality.

Off the top of my head, without knowing in advance the specific arguments that persuaded your son, I recommend the following books:

u/X019 · 1 pointr/Christianity

There are reasons for theism, that are not easily demolished; the same can not be said for leprechauns. Here and here are some arguments for theism, many have rebuttals, and if I may offer a book for you (it's a short one), it's "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller. He touches on many arguments brought against Christianity, I liked it, though I'm a little biased :)

u/DjTj81 · 1 pointr/Christianity

I would recommend Keller's Reason for God, which attempts to address this very question: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594483493/

u/jssdvdmcgrady · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

You have reached the very foundational elements of the faith that are a very large part of why I am a christian, or at least remained a christian once i sought out what the bible had to say about these exact questions.

So philosophically or more so existentially, the truth of why or what it all means has to be an open playing field so to speak. Fatalism, Nihilism or forms of Pessimistic thought have some implications that seem unpleasant or off putting to some, but ultimately hold water within their own logical frame work. Just because an idea is initially off putting does not make it wrong. The difference between those schools of thought vs. Christianity is that they are not built on a foundation upward, but rather a foundation is kind of the conclusion drawn out from an evolving argument. Christianity has a much higher burden in terms of it's foundational consistency.

Instead of being the product of reasoning, Christianity is a product of ancient documents ranging in literary style from history, poetry, theology, personal letters, and prophesy. Out of those documents a cohesive understanding of the universe and the existential impact of that understanding form the religion. That means the documents have to be the source and need to have not changed over the years to support new philosophies. (at least if you're rational)

So if Christianity is true, then the best way to test it would be to examine the most accurate understanding of these ancient manuscripts alone. That's everything from fields of archeology, historical and textual criticism to (what we are touching on in this thread) doctrinal and theological cohesiveness. Do these ancient manuscripts actually form a cohesive philosophy, without the aid of reasoning from a foundation outside of the documents? Also the documents examined have to be the most original copies of these documents along with the most accurate understanding of the way the original authors and readers would have understood them?


It's no easy task and definitely not something to exhaust on reedit. I hope i've given you a better understanding of some deep theological ramifications of biblical christianity and the kind of philosophical impact they have on hypothetical questions. I will now answer your questions, and the answers will no doubt seem trite and unhelpful. But i think i've reached the end of what i can say to a stranger on the internet, having no clue what background you have in biblical study and no idea where to start:

>So the point of Christianity is to glorify God? And if you fail to do this you suffer in hell for an eternity? This seems like a rather conceited concept does it not?

yes it does seem like that within the framework of human interaction and affections. So the way this idea works is not something to understand within the framework of human interaction and affections. God is not human and so again, it's an open playing field. The question is, does the answers the bible gives make any sense?

>So god is willing to punish those who have absolutely no control over whether they survive long enough to reach an age where they could even possibly understand Christianity? Or do you mean he will only punish the babies that would have never become christian?

I have no idea if either of those are true but the plausibility that they remotely could be is built off the theology (a study of the nature and character of god) in the bible. The biblical documents do not flinch in their explanations of seemingly paradoxical ideas. Paradoxical ideas crop up everywhere in the search for understanding meaning, morals, or truth in reality, it's up to you to judge what you think about the answers the bible gives.

>So god is responsible for saving you from a punishment he himself created? The way you depict it makes it sound like what you do is irrelevant in regards to being saved, by this reasoning, is there even a point to try and do ethical actions, since regardless of what you do, you are already saved or damned.

I can defiantly say "trying to do ethical actions" has nothing to do with being saved or dammed. And as far as the seeming paradox of god creating the punishment (what exactly this punishment is is debated between christians) that he himself saves you from? The ultimate purpose is that he gets more glory if he did it this way then just created beings already perfect and ready for eternity with him.





_

Some book ideas about what I talking about.

Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist answers how God's Glory works for our benefit from the bible.

The Reason for God answers some of the seemingly off-puting or paradoxical ramifications of biblical theology.

u/BostonCross · 1 pointr/Catholicism

You should look into the story of C.S. Lewis, one of the most famous theologians and Christian writers in modern history. He, like you, was raised a Christian but became an atheist at the age of 15. When he was an atheist, he started reading about Christianity and asking some of the same questions you are, but finding answers. Two of my favorite books that helped me confirm my faith are linked below. Give them a read before you make any decisions.. Mere Christianity is a little tough to get through, but I have a copy with plenty of pencil markings in it next to my bed.

- Mere Christianity by CS Lewis

- The Reason for God by Timothy Keller

Also, about where you were born.. Catholics believe God knew us from the day he created us. Even if you were born in a Muslim family, you would have found your way to the same place somehow.

u/---sniff--- · 1 pointr/reddit.com

Not going to try to convince you but a good book for the Christian skeptic is "The Reason For God" by Timothy Keller.

u/goots · 1 pointr/Christianity

This was pretty good as well:

The Reason for God

Written by a Tim Keller, a pastor in NYC.

u/demilobotomy · 1 pointr/Christianity

>I'm open to both the idea that god exists and that the bible is true. I am open to it.
But there is not sufficient evidence, and so I do not believe either of those two things.

I understand this completely, trust me. I was raised in a secular household and was an atheist most of my life (most of my comments on reddit are discussing religion so I feel like I mention this in every comment, haha).

I think the biggest thing for me is defining sufficient evidence. It's not a question that lends itself to unquestionable, empirical evidence. On top of that, some answers to the question require not just acknowledging the answer but living it (religious piety and devotion). It's not an easy problem to solve (if it can be solved at all).


 

>I've done just that, and now I am an atheist.

One thing I've realized about atheism is that it's pretty easy to align with, since it doesn't make any bold claims. I'm not saying belief systems need to make bold claims to be valid - that would be ridiculous. I'm saying atheism basically says "We know how works, and we don't know how works, so we'll keep trying to figure it out and see where it goes." There's nothing wrong with that (and in no way should we ever discourage research and the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of religious affiliation).

But, at the same time, I think that when atheists are looking at the questions that religion tries to answer, the evidence used isn't right for the problem. Knowing how the universe works doesn't contrast or disprove a designer of the universe, or a metaphysical realm. The fact that the universe exists means that a metaphysical realm is very likely - it just might be "empty" nothingness. An atheist looks at scientific discoveries as a replacement for god(s), but a religious person looks at these discoveries as an explanation of how god(s) did it. My point is that the truth that is resonating for atheists (or at least most of it) also resonates for religious folks, including Christians. We just have our own spiritual, metaphysical aspect in the picture as well.


 

>Who says I need to get far? Who says I haven't? And what do you mean by getting far?

When I say "getting far" I just mean exploring religion beyond lightly reading the texts while constantly fighting rolling your eyes. I meant actually giving them a chance, even if you end up deciding they're all nonsense. With a question like this, "getting far" is extremely subjective and all I can do is give you my own take on it.


 

>Let's say we didn't know what 2+2 evaluated to. If one religion gave the answer 72, another 42, another 620, is that in any way valid? No, just because we might not have a naturalistic answer to some questions doesn't mean that religion is valid.

I think understand what you're saying, but math isn't necessarily good example. Math is a constructed language to describe its real physical counterparts. We defined what "2" is and have thus defined what "4" is, in the sense that it is "2 + 2" or "1 + 1 + 1 + 1." The system very accurately describes the mathematical components of the universe, but the actual language of math is arbitrary. It is metaphysical in a sense, but it is mapped to a physical reality.

In the case of religion, the physical mapping is literally the universe. At least, it is in a way (and it depends on which religion you're talking about). Religion doesn't try to provide a language to discuss an existing system inside of the universe, it tries to explain the universe itself and the context of humanity and life within it. On the other hand, in a similar way to math - it explains self-aware humans as having souls and our gifts that put us above other animals as gifts from God. We are self-aware with intelligence and morality either way, regardless of whether or not you view them as God-given or as a result of pure natural evolution. In the case of religion, though, these aren't necessarily just arbitrary man-made ideas to explain physical realities. There is a potential that they
are the system. Does that make sense? This particular answer was a little stream-of-consciousness-esque.


 

> Could you provide a demonstration? I do not believe this to be the case.

This is an answer that has been written as books for a reason - it's long. I have a blog and am planning on writing a page on this eventually, but in the meantime I don't want to look like I'm dodging your question. So here's something I wrote in another comment:

>Here are some of the examples of questions that, when I approached them with an open mind to the possibility (however small it was to me at the time) of a supernatural or external being, they made sense in that context.

>* Why are we so far above animals in terms of intelligence and self-awareness?

  • Why did life appear in the first place? The amount of chance chemical combinations required for an amino acid alone is pretty impressive. I understand given an arbitrarily long amount of time it's possible. It just doesn't give a stronger (or weaker) answer than religion, to me. I'm not denying evolution, I'm just skeptical about it happening on its own from the point of no life to life.
  • Why do we have altruistic tendencies and a moral system? We know what we should do even if nobody is actually doing that. This awareness is another thing that separates us from other animals.
  • How is the universe such a fine-tuned system containing (IMO) irreducible complexity? The fact that there are observable and repeatable laws that govern the universe is pretty impressive. That it would happen by chance seems implausible to me.
    If there is a Creator, what kind of Creator would that be based on observing the universe that it created? This question is more for addressing current world religions or attempting to connect (or recognize the inability to connect) to a Creator. I think the universe has elements that point to design, and I think the Creator would need to be a personal God based on how human beings (and other social animals to an extent) interact and function psychologically.

    If you're interested in how I came to faith through reasoning it out, I highly suggest
    [The Reason for God](https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493?ie=UTF8&
    Version=1&entries*=0) by Timothy Keller. Another great book that helped me and that also discusses the perception of science and faith being at war is The Language of God* by Francis Collins. He's the leader of the Human Genome Project and has some good input for questions like Christianity and evolution.


     

    One final thing I feel the need to say is that you're not going to wake up one morning and be 100% sure of God's existence, or any god's existence. It's called a "walk of faith" for a reason, and it's a complex answer to a very complex question. But just because it's not "easy" to believe doesn't mean it directly contradicts scientific evidence or all forms of logic, it's just that once you honestly don't believe in the supernatural it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that particular aspect doesn't reflect the validity of the supernatural answers, it's a result of our limited perception confined to the physical universe.

    Regardless of what you land on or if you even take any of this to heart, I wish you the best of luck with this journey (or, if you don't budge, I wish you luck with your life as it already is). :) If you want to talk to me more about it, you're welcome to do it via commenting or personal message if you'd prefer.
u/Anenome5 · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to believe in god, actually.

The Reason for God

Clearly many religions are quite irrational, however.

u/amertune · 1 pointr/mormon

I've found that I've really enjoyed some books that address topics that are interesting to Mormonism without being related to it at all.

Karen Armstrong (comparative religion/religious history), Bart Ehrman (biblical textual criticism), Timothy Keller (I really loved "The Reason for God"), Joseph Campbell (mythology), have all helped me gain a greater understanding of religion in general.

Other books that cover science and history have been excellent as well. I had what could be called a spiritual experience learning about the magnitude of life and how it exists when I read Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". I would also suggest learning a bit about the origins of modern civilization by studying about Mesopotamia. I found a bit of interesting American history (that also briefly mentions the 19th century "burned over district" and Joseph Smith) in "Occult America: The Secret History of How Mysticism Shaped Our Nation."

My current read is "This is my Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology" by Charles R. Harrell, a BYU professor. It seems like the type of book that many Mormons would find offensive, while many Mormons would find it inspired.

I also enjoy reading scripture and seeing what it says without trying to make it fit what I think it should say, especially the New Testament. Honestly, I think that the New Testament inspires fewer wtf moments than any of the other books of scripture :)

u/REVDR · 1 pointr/Christianity

I would highly recommend giving a fair reading to The Reason for God and Making Sense of God. Both books are written by author Timothy Keller.

The first half of The Reason for God addresses several of the most common critiques or "defeaters" of Christianity (i.e. "How can a good God allow suffering?"), and the second half goes into a more proactive presentation of Christian faith. I have found the book immensely helpful. I feel like Keller does a very fair-minded job of presenting the "other side of the argument" in a way that is not simplistic or based on straw-man argumentation. He also draws on a variety of literary and academic outside sources that make the book very engaging to read. The next book Making Sense of God was written a few years after The Reason for God, but in some ways it functions as an epistemological prequel that tackles more of the reasons why a faith-based worldview still has a place in contemporary society.

For extra measure here is a link that Tim Keller gave at Google over the his material in The Reason for God. The Q&A he does with the employees of Google at the end of the lecture is especially good.

u/lamntien · 1 pointr/Christianity

Ok, no worries.
Please try this one from Timothy Keller. Answers both of your questions

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594483493/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Vk1IAbM8MM0JV

u/treebombs · 0 pointsr/AustralianPolitics

\>faith, by definition, is a delusion. It is belief in something without evidence, reason or logic, the practice of wilful delusion

In response to this I'd make the point I initially made, which is that to pretend that getting rid of religion produces some kind of ideological vacuum, a faithless existence, is naive. Whatever we believe, we believe by definition with incomplete evidence. We aren't God ourselves, and until we are, we don't know what's really going on out there. The scientific method is a beautiful tool for understanding the world around us, but we can only scratch the surface with our experiments and observations. The more we learn, the more we understand how incredibly vast and incredibly complex the universe is. Why does the scientific method even work? Why are there regularities, abstract objects, mathematical truths? Why is there order and structure in the universe?

My own faith isn't simply based on wishful thinking, but also a collection of arguments and evidence I find convincing, including a defence of God as the basis for any system of objective morality--you can find excellent resources to help you understand where people like me are coming from at

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

or

https://www.rzim.org/

or by ordering Tim Keller's book "The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594483493?ie=UTF8&tag=booresbytimke-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594483493.

I hope that you might find in these resources answers for some your questions, or at least a broader understanding of religious faith.

u/mjxl47 · 0 pointsr/Christianity

The Reason for God by Timothy Keller is pretty great. [And it's crazy cheap in paperback on Amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300119353&sr=1-1)

Keller starts the book by describing 6 of the most common "God doesn't exist because..." claims and then refuting them. The last half of the book Keller makes the case for the Christian God of the bible. A great read, in my opinion.

u/mothball187 · 0 pointsr/Christianity

It's probably not your only reason, but you mentioned that you cannot worship a god that would allow so much atrocity and chaos. It would be worth your time to really explore your doubts even if only at first for your immediate goal of trying to understand her faith, and ultimately for your own sake. The Problem of Pain and The Reason for God are both books I have read and enjoyed that address those issues and more. Best wishes to you both.

u/SnakeAColdCruiser · -2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

May not be an answer you expect to hear, but I would recommend learning about God and the gospel of Jesus. The Reason for God by Tim Keller is a great book, written specifically for skeptics and/or atheists. Not overly "preachy" Highly recommend!

u/kinzkopf · -2 pointsr/europe

No one can flee from making religious statements (=statements which can't be checked in a natural scientific way), because everyone has a certain view on the existence of SUPERnatural, which can't be checked in a NATURAL scientific way. This applys to every statement about religion, which means that every statement on religion itself is religious. So if someone claims banning religious Statements is the right thing to do, he bans his own statement, which means this statement is contradictory.

Timothy Keller explains this in detail in his book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (online summary) and in several online lectures.