Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: Intro.: Best of Left and Right, and Doubting Doubts
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion -- Introduction
Best of Left and Right, and Doubting Doubts
Keller observes, “the world is polarizing over religion. It is getting both more religious and less religious at the same time,” (x). Do you see this in your day-to-day? If so, how so? If not, how do the people around you seem to feel about religion? How do you feel about religion? Would you like to give a brief synopsis of your faith narrative thus far (modeled after June, Jeffrey and Kelly’s)? This is a great way to introduce yourself to the group.
Keller mentioned “the two camps,” and a “third camp.” In the first two camps, “the people most passionate about social justice were moral relativists, while the morally upright didn’t seem to care about the oppression going on all over the world,” (xii). In response to the first camp, Keller asked, “If morality is relative, why isn’t social justice as well?” In response to the second camp, “Christianity began to seem very unreal” to him. This formed one of three barriers to his faith. The three barriers were 1) intellectual (the tough questions), 2) interior, personal (lack of experiencing God’s presence), and 3) social (dissatisfaction with the first two camps and a need for the third camp). In the third camp he found a “band of brothers” (and sisters) – “a group of Christians who had a concern for justice in the world but who grounded it in the nature of God rather than in their own subjective feelings,” (xiii). In another section he mentions a spiritual third way (the first two ways being traditional conservative and secular liberal) that is “much more concerned about the poor and social justice than Republicans have been, and at the same time much more concerned about upholding classic Christian moral and sexual ethics than Democrats have been,” (xx). Does this third camp appeal to you, and, if so, what are some practical ways to develop it? If not, why not? Have you identified any barriers to your faith that Keller did not mention?
I like how Keller points out “A faith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it.” I also like how Keller sees that all doubts emerge from a starting point of alternate belief, and that he encourages skeptics to “doubt their doubts” with as much force as they require justification for Christian belief. I like his goal that “Believers and nonbelievers will rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing the other. This happens when each side has learned to represent the other’s argument in its strongest and most positive form. … I’ve tried to respectfully help skeptics look at their own faith-foundations while at the same time laying bare my own to their strongest criticisms,” (xxviii, xix). Keller is not afraid of this ‘laying bare’. He concludes the introduction pointing out how, though Thomas doubted, Jesus gave him the evidence he sought; even though the man in Mark 9:24 had doubts, Jesus “blesses him and heals his son.” “I invite you to seek the same kind of honesty and to grow in an understanding of the nature of your own doubts. The result will exceed anything you can imagine,” (xxiii). His reference to ‘honesty’ reminds me of my fellowship’s emphasis on ‘authenticity’. I have found all of this to be true in my own spiritual journey with Christ, and it is ultimately what I pray for this group as we work through Keller’s “The Reason for God.” Do you fear doubt, questioning, and ‘laying bare’ your beliefs to criticism? Why do you agree or disagree with footnote 9 (page 244)? Do you doubt the result that Keller promises? What are your personal goals for this book discussion?
Is there anything in the introduction you would like to discuss that I did not refer to?
*******
Notes of sermon at Redeemer on the intro.
Download sermon and study guide: www.reasonforgod.com/media.php
Doubt
Case study: John 20:1-18
Unmask Doubt, Examine Faith, Fuel Hope
1. Unmask Doubt
Evidence: empty tomb.
Mary's conclusion: grave robbing.
--doubt of resurrection is belief/faith in resurrection's impossibility
John's conclusion: Jesus rose from the dead.
--unreasonable? Impossible? a belief
Every doubt is based on an alternative belief, a faith assumption.
It's faith vs. faith, not reason vs. faith (false dichotomy).
2. Examine Faith
Doubt your doubts (faith assumptions).
Everyone makes their choices based on these assumptions-compass of soul. It matters.
Faith is trust, so it doesn't matter how strong/weak it is-but what you put faith "in".
v13 Mary trusted Jesus as Lord, now what she trusts in is gone
What do you put your faith in? Easy come, easy go. We've all done it.
The weakest faith in Jesus is far more liberating than the strongest faith in anything else.
3. Fuel Hope
Hebrews 11:1 - hope is that which fuels our faith
Mary's crying, everyone is hiding in the upper room, 'cause their hope is gone
Doubt our doubts, gaze at the tomb.
Matthew 14-"why did you doubt?"
faith in reality of storm greater than faith in Jesus, for Peter
faith in our doubts greater than faith in Jesus
is relationship w/ Jesus more intellectual than it is personal?
do you believe in the cross, but it isn't "real" to you?
If you trust Him to die for you-trust Him with every part of your life.
Spend time developing your relationship with Him…reading what He says, praying, hanging out with His people, listening to their encouragement, etcetera.
Then the doubts won't sink you.
Gaze at the tomb. V16 It all seems too good to be true, in this broken world-a fairy tale. But it is true "Mary". Live it. Walk out on that water. Tell everybody.
Where is your focus? Is it in something you can learn about and enjoy forever? If not, how is that working out for you?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Leftover Legalism vs. Love
"What if... just what if people in the world can be brilliant and talented and moral and kind because people honestly have the capacity to be brilliant and talented and moral and kind? What if, whether god(s) made us or not, we've advanced enough that even though we have the ability to do horrible things we've also managed to create FOR OURSELVES a need and expectation to be good and kind to one another, and to express ourselves in beautiful ways.
"What if we, as a species, honestly have the capacity to find goodness for ourselves? What if we're growing up?" – Dave Haaz-Baroque
The word religion can trigger resentment because often there is lingering guilt left over even after someone leaves a legalistic system which mangles our understanding of why 'good' even matters. The guilt can drive people to be defensive to the attack that "Your atheism means you have no morality... means you are amoral, immoral... for shame!" Such an attack reflects ignorance about ourselves and about God's love. We all behave amorally/immorally, regardless our relationship with God (or lack thereof). The point is not to be a "moral" person (legalism). The point is love.
I wasn’t particularly motivated to be good after I lost faith (I have since been brought back to faith), but I did and do notice others who have lost faith, or never had faith, saying essentially “We can be good without God.” What exactly does it mean to be “good”? If we create the meaning of “good,” why do we feel obligated to do so if there is no God to judge us? If we grow into it, is it a part of reality that we don’t create? Let’s say that to be good is to love without prerequisite or discrimination. How many people do you know who love like that? If that definition is a creation, what motivates me to follow it, if the poor opinion of others does not motivate me? If that definition is a part of reality we don’t create—then isn’t that part of reality capable of love? Isn’t it God? Can’t His unearnable love motivate mine?
Being neither self-sufficient, nor eternal, we can’t be our own self-sufficient source of eternal moral truth. On our own, apart from God, we adapt love into what it is not (still perhaps calling it love, though it isn’t, or feigning to abandon it altogether, though we cannot… not without that part of ourselves dying). Often, we love from a lack because we are lonely and feel empty, but He loves and helps us to love from abundance because He is completely fulfilled and it is in His nature to pour out unmerited love.
If we think doing good makes us a good, worthy person, we are enslaved and do not understand God's unmerited love. We cannot buy His love with good works, and works cannot really even be considered 'good' if not motivated by unmerited love (of which God is the source).
One criticism of Christianity in general is that there are so many hypocrites who don’t conduct or model their lives according to Christ’s example, either through resembling the world or resembling the legalistic Pharisees. The argument is that Christianity doesn’t work. If it did, every last Christian would be the spitting image of Christ. But only God is ever going to be perfectly good. Christianity is not about being morally superior—it is about an intimate, authentic relationship with our Creator. That we do not become perfect the instant we become a Christian, perfect in the sense of being self-able to overcome every single temptation in a single bound, points to the fact that we are not and never will be self-sufficient and that the point is God’s unmerited love, holding fast to an intimate loving relationship with God from which nothing can separate us – it is He who cleans the slate and is the author and perfector of our faith. C.S. Lewis writes, “If what you want is an argument against Christianity … you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say … ‘So there’s your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.’ But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people’s souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him,” (18; 168).
We are alone with a God who loves us despite what we do, and will motivate us to love others likewise. The reason I was motivated to write this is because I have heard so many non-Christians say, “I can be good without God.” They are still enslaved to the sort of thinking left over from Pharisaical legalism. The goal, the meaning of life, is not to be a good, worthy person—it is to know love. God’s love is not earned—it is free. A Christian seeks to answer, “Which theory best explains the mark God has already forgiven us for missing?” And we won’t be able to keep that love to ourselves. That is the ‘why’ behind this paper: http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/
"What if we, as a species, honestly have the capacity to find goodness for ourselves? What if we're growing up?" – Dave Haaz-Baroque
The word religion can trigger resentment because often there is lingering guilt left over even after someone leaves a legalistic system which mangles our understanding of why 'good' even matters. The guilt can drive people to be defensive to the attack that "Your atheism means you have no morality... means you are amoral, immoral... for shame!" Such an attack reflects ignorance about ourselves and about God's love. We all behave amorally/immorally, regardless our relationship with God (or lack thereof). The point is not to be a "moral" person (legalism). The point is love.
I wasn’t particularly motivated to be good after I lost faith (I have since been brought back to faith), but I did and do notice others who have lost faith, or never had faith, saying essentially “We can be good without God.” What exactly does it mean to be “good”? If we create the meaning of “good,” why do we feel obligated to do so if there is no God to judge us? If we grow into it, is it a part of reality that we don’t create? Let’s say that to be good is to love without prerequisite or discrimination. How many people do you know who love like that? If that definition is a creation, what motivates me to follow it, if the poor opinion of others does not motivate me? If that definition is a part of reality we don’t create—then isn’t that part of reality capable of love? Isn’t it God? Can’t His unearnable love motivate mine?
Being neither self-sufficient, nor eternal, we can’t be our own self-sufficient source of eternal moral truth. On our own, apart from God, we adapt love into what it is not (still perhaps calling it love, though it isn’t, or feigning to abandon it altogether, though we cannot… not without that part of ourselves dying). Often, we love from a lack because we are lonely and feel empty, but He loves and helps us to love from abundance because He is completely fulfilled and it is in His nature to pour out unmerited love.
If we think doing good makes us a good, worthy person, we are enslaved and do not understand God's unmerited love. We cannot buy His love with good works, and works cannot really even be considered 'good' if not motivated by unmerited love (of which God is the source).
One criticism of Christianity in general is that there are so many hypocrites who don’t conduct or model their lives according to Christ’s example, either through resembling the world or resembling the legalistic Pharisees. The argument is that Christianity doesn’t work. If it did, every last Christian would be the spitting image of Christ. But only God is ever going to be perfectly good. Christianity is not about being morally superior—it is about an intimate, authentic relationship with our Creator. That we do not become perfect the instant we become a Christian, perfect in the sense of being self-able to overcome every single temptation in a single bound, points to the fact that we are not and never will be self-sufficient and that the point is God’s unmerited love, holding fast to an intimate loving relationship with God from which nothing can separate us – it is He who cleans the slate and is the author and perfector of our faith. C.S. Lewis writes, “If what you want is an argument against Christianity … you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say … ‘So there’s your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.’ But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people’s souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him,” (18; 168).
We are alone with a God who loves us despite what we do, and will motivate us to love others likewise. The reason I was motivated to write this is because I have heard so many non-Christians say, “I can be good without God.” They are still enslaved to the sort of thinking left over from Pharisaical legalism. The goal, the meaning of life, is not to be a good, worthy person—it is to know love. God’s love is not earned—it is free. A Christian seeks to answer, “Which theory best explains the mark God has already forgiven us for missing?” And we won’t be able to keep that love to ourselves. That is the ‘why’ behind this paper: http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
God's Essential Nature
I was asked by Peter Harrison on Richard Dawkins' forum to explain what God is, exactly. He took issue with the fact that God is the same as His attributes. Read on...
Peter: "What" is the same as "attributes"? Watch this for a short introduction to why what you say is nonsense: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=57739&st=0&sk=t&sd=a" -- That thread contains a link to this YouTube video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IyJp5dak9M by eightfootmanchild
I posted this in that thread yesterday after lunch and am awaiting response: Put anything else in existence in the position of 'x' in "What is 'x'?" How do we describe x? Isn't it by defining its attributes? If you rule out such description and insist that x must not exist if all one can provide is a list of attributes--then... nothing exists. Is there not an already-established title for this fallacy? … “Perhaps it would help others understand what exactly you mean by "primary characteristics" if you provided ONLY the primary characteristics of yourself (eight foot manchild), or of "the human" in general.
Before I answer "What is God?" -- a warm-up:
“The Platonic idea of a univocal concept whose Form remains constant does not fit our experience with language. Further, whatever form our finite expressions may have, it does seem to be a gross form of verbal idolatry to suppose that such forms can convey to us the very essence of an infinite and transcendent God. … And this essence no finite mind, ideas, or words can capture,” (310-312, Geisler and Feinberg, “Intro. to Philo. / A Christian Perspective”). With all that in mind, I will do my best to explain this.
What is God? What is the essence of God?
God (eternal; “I AM that I AM”) transcends beyond, and is imminent within, the temporal – and though the two are distinct types of being (eternal and temporal), they are not divorced from each other. The eternal can affect the temporal, but the temporal never affects the eternal unless the eternal allows it (for example, all prayer requests are granted both within the temporal, and beyond the beginning of time). Eternal God is unchanging: (Ps. 102:25-27; 1 Samuel 15:29; Mal. 3:6; Hebrews 1:10-12; Heb. 6:18; Titus 1:2; James 1:17). He intimately, lovingly interacts from within and beyond the temporal. This is what enabled Him to communicate with us on our level through the Son’s incarnation without breaking unity between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and is what enables our sovereign God to allow our free will (without which love is impossible), answer our prayers, and react appropriately to every temporal situation within His eternal happiness. “...God is an eternal and entirely independent Being. He is not dependent on anything in the created universe for what He 'is.' And being a simple (indivisible) Being, whatever He 'has' He is. That is, His attributes are identical to His essence or nature. So if God has knowledge, then he is knowledge. This means that while the objects of His knowledge are distinct from His nature, God's knowledge of them is identical to His eternal and independent nature. Thus, God's knowledge is independent of anything outside Himself," (52, Geisler, "Chosen But Free"). Same deal with love (and His other positive attributes) as with knowledge--all primary, because He is simple and unchanging. “God’s attention does not pass from thought to thought, for His knowledge embraces everything in a single spiritual co-intuition. For if God is simple, then His thoughts are not sequential but simultaneous. He does not know things inferentially but intuitively,” (ibid). “In brief, God can know the potential as well as the actual. And the future is potential. The future preexists in Him as its primary cause ["In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28)]. So God knows the future in advance by knowing Himself,” (111, ibid). [The future is only 'potential' in the sense that it 'preexists' rather than 'exists right now'. The 'present moment' is only 'actual' in the sense that it 'exists right now'. I say that because in other contexts (especially when discussing the view of Neotheists), 'potential' and 'actual' carry different meanings.] Being simple and eternal, God’s essence, or virtue, is His existence (He is pure actuality, did not have to ‘develop’ virtue, and exists eternally), whereas our essence, or virtue, precedes our existence (we have potential, develop virtue, and exist temporally). “That is, nothing is accidental to the being (existence) of a necessary Being. Whatever God 'has,' that He is—essentially,” (111, ibid). That is why God ‘is’ love, and to be made in His image is to be made with the potential to love [“he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature,” (2 Peter 1:4)]. All of our other abilities that make us unique as humans, such as creativity, contemplation, and so on, are (or should be) in service to the main ability to love. Because He is eternal love, and because love is impossible outside relationship, He is eternal relationship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God wills in accordance with His essential, good nature, and it is this love-nature that spoke the universe, from beginning to end, into existence, knowing His love is made evident to the world through the promised sacrifice of the Son. If we break unity with Him, the ground of being, it limits our entire essence (our understanding of and ability to fully love), but it does not destroy it—we still exist apart from Him and love the way the world loves, but we are incomplete and cannot enjoy the fullness of His love apart from Him.
Love defined:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/TorreysTopicalTextbook/ttt.cgi?number=T349
http://www.godandscience.org/love/biblicallove.html
Peter: "What" is the same as "attributes"? Watch this for a short introduction to why what you say is nonsense: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=57739&st=0&sk=t&sd=a" -- That thread contains a link to this YouTube video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IyJp5dak9M by eightfootmanchild
I posted this in that thread yesterday after lunch and am awaiting response: Put anything else in existence in the position of 'x' in "What is 'x'?" How do we describe x? Isn't it by defining its attributes? If you rule out such description and insist that x must not exist if all one can provide is a list of attributes--then... nothing exists. Is there not an already-established title for this fallacy? … “Perhaps it would help others understand what exactly you mean by "primary characteristics" if you provided ONLY the primary characteristics of yourself (eight foot manchild), or of "the human" in general.
Before I answer "What is God?" -- a warm-up:
“The Platonic idea of a univocal concept whose Form remains constant does not fit our experience with language. Further, whatever form our finite expressions may have, it does seem to be a gross form of verbal idolatry to suppose that such forms can convey to us the very essence of an infinite and transcendent God. … And this essence no finite mind, ideas, or words can capture,” (310-312, Geisler and Feinberg, “Intro. to Philo. / A Christian Perspective”). With all that in mind, I will do my best to explain this.
What is God? What is the essence of God?
God (eternal; “I AM that I AM”) transcends beyond, and is imminent within, the temporal – and though the two are distinct types of being (eternal and temporal), they are not divorced from each other. The eternal can affect the temporal, but the temporal never affects the eternal unless the eternal allows it (for example, all prayer requests are granted both within the temporal, and beyond the beginning of time). Eternal God is unchanging: (Ps. 102:25-27; 1 Samuel 15:29; Mal. 3:6; Hebrews 1:10-12; Heb. 6:18; Titus 1:2; James 1:17). He intimately, lovingly interacts from within and beyond the temporal. This is what enabled Him to communicate with us on our level through the Son’s incarnation without breaking unity between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and is what enables our sovereign God to allow our free will (without which love is impossible), answer our prayers, and react appropriately to every temporal situation within His eternal happiness. “...God is an eternal and entirely independent Being. He is not dependent on anything in the created universe for what He 'is.' And being a simple (indivisible) Being, whatever He 'has' He is. That is, His attributes are identical to His essence or nature. So if God has knowledge, then he is knowledge. This means that while the objects of His knowledge are distinct from His nature, God's knowledge of them is identical to His eternal and independent nature. Thus, God's knowledge is independent of anything outside Himself," (52, Geisler, "Chosen But Free"). Same deal with love (and His other positive attributes) as with knowledge--all primary, because He is simple and unchanging. “God’s attention does not pass from thought to thought, for His knowledge embraces everything in a single spiritual co-intuition. For if God is simple, then His thoughts are not sequential but simultaneous. He does not know things inferentially but intuitively,” (ibid). “In brief, God can know the potential as well as the actual. And the future is potential. The future preexists in Him as its primary cause ["In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28)]. So God knows the future in advance by knowing Himself,” (111, ibid). [The future is only 'potential' in the sense that it 'preexists' rather than 'exists right now'. The 'present moment' is only 'actual' in the sense that it 'exists right now'. I say that because in other contexts (especially when discussing the view of Neotheists), 'potential' and 'actual' carry different meanings.] Being simple and eternal, God’s essence, or virtue, is His existence (He is pure actuality, did not have to ‘develop’ virtue, and exists eternally), whereas our essence, or virtue, precedes our existence (we have potential, develop virtue, and exist temporally). “That is, nothing is accidental to the being (existence) of a necessary Being. Whatever God 'has,' that He is—essentially,” (111, ibid). That is why God ‘is’ love, and to be made in His image is to be made with the potential to love [“he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature,” (2 Peter 1:4)]. All of our other abilities that make us unique as humans, such as creativity, contemplation, and so on, are (or should be) in service to the main ability to love. Because He is eternal love, and because love is impossible outside relationship, He is eternal relationship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God wills in accordance with His essential, good nature, and it is this love-nature that spoke the universe, from beginning to end, into existence, knowing His love is made evident to the world through the promised sacrifice of the Son. If we break unity with Him, the ground of being, it limits our entire essence (our understanding of and ability to fully love), but it does not destroy it—we still exist apart from Him and love the way the world loves, but we are incomplete and cannot enjoy the fullness of His love apart from Him.
Love defined:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/TorreysTopicalTextbook/ttt.cgi?number=T349
http://www.godandscience.org/love/biblicallove.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)