Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 10: The Problem of Sin
The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
TEN: The Problem of Sin
“In chapter 10, Keller delves into the issue of sin and its consequences. He begins by positing that we already know sin exists: ‘It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world’ (p. 159). Do you agree that it’s valid to define what is broken in the world as sin? Why or why not? And given all the things that are broken in the world, what questions does that raise in your mind about God?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
I like how Keller points out that any time we attempt to build our identity on anything but God and His eternal love, it is sin. An identity built apart from God “can desert you in a moment” (164). God is the only one who can meet our need for Him. Attempting to meet that need with god-substitutes reflects and intensifies our “disordered loves” (165). Sin “does not only have an internal impact on us but also a devastating effect on the social fabric,” (167). “Edwards concludes that only if God is our summum bonum, our ultimate good and life center, will we find our heart drawn out not only to people of all families, races, and classes, but to the whole world in general,” (168). “The more we love and identify deeply with our family, our class, our race, or our religion, the harder it is not to feel superior or even hostile to other religions, races, etc.,” (169). “If you don’t live for Jesus you will live for something else. … If there is a God who created you, then the deepest chambers of your soul simply cannot be filled up by anything less. That is how great the human soul is. If Jesus is the Creator-Lord, then by definition nothing could satisfy you like he can, even if you are successful. Even the most successful careers and families cannot give the significance, security, and affirmation that the author of glory and love can. … Jesus is the only Lord who, if you receive him, will fulfill you completely, and, if you fail him, will forgive you eternally,” (172-173). If you are not living for God’s eternal love – what are you living for? Does it fulfill you completely?
What of the 5 options below (explained in the link below) do you choose and why:
http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/08/definition-of-sin-or-moral-evil-or-vice.html
1. Evil exists, therefore a Good Creator does not exist.
2. All is god (pantheism) and there is no evil.
3. There is no such thing as evil, because evil implies an objective, transcendent moral law, which only exists if God exists, and God does not exist.
4. Dualism: good and evil in eternal opposition.
5. Sin is co-creating (exercising free will) apart from God (love).
Do you agree/disagree with any of the vices/virtues being labeled as such in the link below, and do you agree/disagree they all spring from the Golden Rule or royal law of love?
http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/08/sword-and-sacrifice-philosophy.html
Where is your focus? Is it in something you can learn about and enjoy forever? If not, how is that working out for you?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
RFG 9: The Knowledge of God
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG NINE: The Knowledge of God (Happy MLK, Jr. Day!)
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
NINE: The Knowledge of God
“In chapter 9, the author states that the real challenge is not to prove that God exists, but to recognize that people already suspect that God exists. He points to the human sense that certain things are right and others are wrong. For example, protecting children from harm is right; ethnic cleansing is wrong. In light of these understandings, Keller writes: “[D]oesn’t that mean you do believe that there is some kind of moral standard that people should abide by regardless of their individual convictions?” (p. 146). He continues: “We can’t know that nature is broken in some way unless there is some super-natural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong” (p. 155 —156). Do you agree that a shared sense of right and wrong is an indication of God’s existence? Discuss your responses,” – Penguin
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
The quotes at the beginning of chapter eight would have gone excellently at the beginning of chapter nine as well. Would you agree with Maugham and Sartre that, without God, life has no given meaning, that we have no given reason for existing?
Are you of the category of people Keller talks about that no longer believes in God, but still believes some things are right or wrong even if we or others are inclined otherwise? If so, do you feel your moral intuitions are “free-floating in midair” – that “underneath there is an abyss” (145)? –or do you think they are grounded in nature? Do you agree we should love our enemies? Do you think if we all loved our enemies, it would lead to extinction? Do you think that natural selection can work on whole populations, and that the consensus Keller referred to might change? If our moral intuitions were grounded in nature, would that mean life does have a given meaning, that we do have a given reason for existing, contrary to Maugham and Sartre’s thinking, even if there is no God?
Do you think universal human rights come from God, are discovered in nature, or are invented by humans? Does it make sense to you that all of nature “thrives on violence and predation, survival of the fittest” – but it is grounded in nature that humans should not do this? Do you think the “state of nature” is devoid of moral values, or that human morality is part of the “state of nature”?
Keller writes, “If there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is ‘moral’ and another ‘immoral’ but only ‘I like this.’ [Ichthus: emotivism.] If that is the case, who gets the right to put their subjective, arbitrary moral feelings into law? You may say, ‘the majority has the right to make the law,’ but do you mean that then the majority has the right to vote to exterminate a minority? If you say ‘No, that is wrong,’ then you are back to square one. ‘Who sez’ that the majority has a moral obligation not the kill the minority?” (153). Do you think maybe that even though “we can’t justify or ground human rights in a world without God, we still know they exist”? –that “Without God [we] can’t justify moral obligation, and yet [we] can’t not know it exists” (154-155)? If a premise (‘There is no God’) leads to a conclusion you know isn’t true (‘Napalming babies is culturally relative’) then why not change the premise?” (156)
Let’s compare two parts of the above:
“We can’t know that nature is broken in some way unless there is some super-natural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong” (p. 155 —156).
Do you think the “state of nature” is devoid of moral values, or that human morality is part of the “state of nature”?
I almost edited the second statement to have "(the only part that can be morally broken)" attached to the end. When Keller is saying nature is broken, he's referring to the fact that all of nature “thrives on violence and predation, survival of the fittest” -- that's what he is calling 'broken.' Do you think nature is broken because of this? If we include ourselves in the "state of nature" -- then it is really only humans that can be broken when we go against our moral values -- the rest of nature is indifferent, as Dawkins would say. However, Dawkins includes us in with nature when he makes that "indifferent" statement. Any thoughts?
I'm reading this book that says there are things new (not determined) in nature (also that nature is creative), which is why free will is possible (it's not written by a Christian, I think the guy is new-agey). But I think from God's perspective, that isn't true, because the universe is complete from the first moment to the last moment. Really, I think there is actually 'more than' just what we conceive as nature, which is why free will is possible. He took our free choices into account and included them in the completed work, before it ever began. Abstract thought makes us capable of choosing, and moral reasoning, and discovery... of moral absolutes. I think it is possible that our human natures are hospitable to moral intuitions (they can be grounded in nature), but still find myself asking: would that mean life does have a given meaning, that we do have a given reason for existing, contrary to Maugham and Sartre’s thinking, even if there is no God? Dawkins would say "no." Keller says, that is neither here nor there -- we know there is meaning and objective morality: it's the premise (God does not exist) that we need to change.
But, that was kind of a tangent. Tim Keller clearly thinks the whole of nature is broken. I think the brokenness that happens to the aspect of nature that doesn't have free will, must be the kind of brokenness that happens when we unknowingly do something that is not good for us. Maybe only in the Garden of Eden (thinking poetically here, though Keller might take it literally), where we have not yet broken unity with God, does the whole of nature go in unbroken harmony with God.
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
NINE: The Knowledge of God
“In chapter 9, the author states that the real challenge is not to prove that God exists, but to recognize that people already suspect that God exists. He points to the human sense that certain things are right and others are wrong. For example, protecting children from harm is right; ethnic cleansing is wrong. In light of these understandings, Keller writes: “[D]oesn’t that mean you do believe that there is some kind of moral standard that people should abide by regardless of their individual convictions?” (p. 146). He continues: “We can’t know that nature is broken in some way unless there is some super-natural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong” (p. 155 —156). Do you agree that a shared sense of right and wrong is an indication of God’s existence? Discuss your responses,” – Penguin
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
The quotes at the beginning of chapter eight would have gone excellently at the beginning of chapter nine as well. Would you agree with Maugham and Sartre that, without God, life has no given meaning, that we have no given reason for existing?
Are you of the category of people Keller talks about that no longer believes in God, but still believes some things are right or wrong even if we or others are inclined otherwise? If so, do you feel your moral intuitions are “free-floating in midair” – that “underneath there is an abyss” (145)? –or do you think they are grounded in nature? Do you agree we should love our enemies? Do you think if we all loved our enemies, it would lead to extinction? Do you think that natural selection can work on whole populations, and that the consensus Keller referred to might change? If our moral intuitions were grounded in nature, would that mean life does have a given meaning, that we do have a given reason for existing, contrary to Maugham and Sartre’s thinking, even if there is no God?
Do you think universal human rights come from God, are discovered in nature, or are invented by humans? Does it make sense to you that all of nature “thrives on violence and predation, survival of the fittest” – but it is grounded in nature that humans should not do this? Do you think the “state of nature” is devoid of moral values, or that human morality is part of the “state of nature”?
Keller writes, “If there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is ‘moral’ and another ‘immoral’ but only ‘I like this.’ [Ichthus: emotivism.] If that is the case, who gets the right to put their subjective, arbitrary moral feelings into law? You may say, ‘the majority has the right to make the law,’ but do you mean that then the majority has the right to vote to exterminate a minority? If you say ‘No, that is wrong,’ then you are back to square one. ‘Who sez’ that the majority has a moral obligation not the kill the minority?” (153). Do you think maybe that even though “we can’t justify or ground human rights in a world without God, we still know they exist”? –that “Without God [we] can’t justify moral obligation, and yet [we] can’t not know it exists” (154-155)? If a premise (‘There is no God’) leads to a conclusion you know isn’t true (‘Napalming babies is culturally relative’) then why not change the premise?” (156)
Let’s compare two parts of the above:
“We can’t know that nature is broken in some way unless there is some super-natural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong” (p. 155 —156).
Do you think the “state of nature” is devoid of moral values, or that human morality is part of the “state of nature”?
I almost edited the second statement to have "(the only part that can be morally broken)" attached to the end. When Keller is saying nature is broken, he's referring to the fact that all of nature “thrives on violence and predation, survival of the fittest” -- that's what he is calling 'broken.' Do you think nature is broken because of this? If we include ourselves in the "state of nature" -- then it is really only humans that can be broken when we go against our moral values -- the rest of nature is indifferent, as Dawkins would say. However, Dawkins includes us in with nature when he makes that "indifferent" statement. Any thoughts?
I'm reading this book that says there are things new (not determined) in nature (also that nature is creative), which is why free will is possible (it's not written by a Christian, I think the guy is new-agey). But I think from God's perspective, that isn't true, because the universe is complete from the first moment to the last moment. Really, I think there is actually 'more than' just what we conceive as nature, which is why free will is possible. He took our free choices into account and included them in the completed work, before it ever began. Abstract thought makes us capable of choosing, and moral reasoning, and discovery... of moral absolutes. I think it is possible that our human natures are hospitable to moral intuitions (they can be grounded in nature), but still find myself asking: would that mean life does have a given meaning, that we do have a given reason for existing, contrary to Maugham and Sartre’s thinking, even if there is no God? Dawkins would say "no." Keller says, that is neither here nor there -- we know there is meaning and objective morality: it's the premise (God does not exist) that we need to change.
But, that was kind of a tangent. Tim Keller clearly thinks the whole of nature is broken. I think the brokenness that happens to the aspect of nature that doesn't have free will, must be the kind of brokenness that happens when we unknowingly do something that is not good for us. Maybe only in the Garden of Eden (thinking poetically here, though Keller might take it literally), where we have not yet broken unity with God, does the whole of nature go in unbroken harmony with God.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
RFG 8: The Clues of God
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG EIGHT: The Clues of God
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
EIGHT: The Clues of God
Though Keller agrees it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, he asserts it is possible to weigh the accumulated weight of the clues (though they are each rationally avoidable). There are five clues presented in this chapter:
Clue 1: The Mysterious Bang -- We discussed this clue at the beginning of chapter 6’s discussion questions. Either God created the universe, or it “just happened” – and both require faith. I had thought the cyclic cosmological model was a way out of this clue, though I do not necessarily subscribe to it, however, "The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started." -- Brian Greene. For some, the question “Why something rather than nothing?” is made more unfathomable by the existence of God. Rather than (or, perhaps ‘after’) answering the question for them, God’s existence triggers more questions, like “What was God’s motivation, and doesn’t having motivation imply He was lacking something and therefore not ‘complete’?” Divine impassibility was covered at the end of chapter 3’s discussion questions, and I will again provide the link here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm It is also discussed in chapter 14.
Clue 2: The Cosmic Welcome Mat -- This clue is also called the anthropic principle (or fine-tuning argument), which recognizes that humans could not exist in any other universe than this one. If any of this universe’s constants were different, we would not be around to observe them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant These constants seem fine-tuned by God to support us. There have been several rebuttals, all requiring faith.
Clue 3: The Regularity of Nature -- At first this clue didn’t seem very convincing to me, because I had never wondered about the regularity of nature. But (as Hume and Russell pointed out), continued regularity is a matter of faith. There is nothing guaranteeing the universe will be here tomorrow, or that it will operate according to all the cycles we’ve been observing throughout the years, with all its laws. That the universe and all its cycles and laws do keep happening is a clue to a Sustainer of all that regularity.
Clue 4: The Clue of Beauty -- “We may, therefore, be secular materialists who believe truth and justice, good and evil, are complete illusions. But in the presence of art or even great natural beauty, our hearts tell us another story. … regardless of the beliefs of our mind about the random meaninglessness of life, before the face of beauty we know better. … Isn’t it true that innate desires correspond to real objects that can satisfy them? … Doesn’t the unfulfillable longing evoked by beauty qualify as an innate desire? We have a longing for joy, love, and beauty that no amount or quality of food, sex, friendship, or success can satisfy. We want something that nothing in this world can fulfill,” (134-135). Perhaps this desire is a type of sense, like sight, a type of sense built for sensing God, and so cannot be satisfied by anything in the natural universe? Have you ever felt “there must be more” when in the presence of beauty (not a mere wish)?
Clue 5: We Trust Our Belief-Forming Faculties -- First Keller talks about the clue-killer that all of our beliefs and values are naturally selected and not to be trusted – then he lets it die by its own knife: the belief that all of our beliefs and values are naturally selected and not to be trusted—is not to be trusted. Then he says that the fact that we do trust our belief-forming faculties (here we are weighing clues) is a clue to God.
*******
After reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" -- I have become more aware of inflationary theory, and the cyclic model of Steinhardt and Turok, of quantum uncertainty, superstring theory (of five string theories unified in M-theory), joining quantum mechanics and general relativity, the Higgs ocean, M-theory, branes, spacetime may not be fundamental in the sub-Planckian realm, Calabi Yau shape, dark matter/energy, higher dimensions, etc., and can tell you there are many unanswered questions, and many assumptions taken on faith as place-holders until there is rational justification to assume them. Scientists usually (at least tentatively) favor, or have confidence in (based on evidence) a theory and do research to find evidence that will confirm or conflict with it. Scientists aren't satisified with "I don't know"--that would be waving the white flag of defeat... the unforgiveable leap of faith away from discovery. All their work speaks "I can know, and I'm going to find out." Excerpts from Greene's book: "Probabilistically speaking, it is mind-bogglingly more likely that everything we now see in the universe arose from a rare but every-so-often expectable statistical aberration away from total disorder, rather than having slowly evolved from the even more likely, the incredibly more ordered, the astoundingly low-entropy starting point required by the big bang. / Yet, when we went with the odds and imagined that everything popped into existence by a statistical fluke, we found ourselves in a quagmire: that route called into question the laws of physics themselves. And so we are inclined to buck the bookies and go with a low-entropy big bang as the explanation for the arrow of time. The puzzle then is to explain how the universe began in such an unlikely, highly ordered configuration. That is the question to which the arrow of time points. It all comes down to cosmology," (176) The theories (still incomplete) mentioned above attempt to explain the answer. "...the highly successful laws of physics developed in the twentieth century break down under such intense conditions [I: in the early universe], leaving us rudderless in our quest to understand the beginning of time. We will see shortly that recent developments are providing a hopeful beacon, but for now we acknowledge our incomplete understanding of what happened at the beginning," (248). "...if inflationary cosmology is right, our ignorance [I: remains] of why there is an inflaton field, why its potential energy bowl has the right shape for inflation to have occurred, why there are space and time within which the whole discussion takes place, and, in Leibniz's more grandiose phrasing, why there is something rather than nothing," (286). "The vision is that string/M-theory will unfuzz...our ignorance of the universe's earliest moments, and after that, the cosmological drama will unfold according to inflationary theory's remarkably successful script...But, as of now...it's anybody's guess when clarity will be achieved. ... The proposal...called the cyclic model...suggest(s) that we are living within a three-brane that violently collides every few trillion years with another nearby, parallel three-brane. And the 'bang' from the collision initiates each new cosmological cycle...also known tenderly as the big splat... The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started." (404, 406, 407). Science can only study physical somethings (which science acknowledges as necessarily having a beginning)--not their nonphysical origins. God is a nonphysical something and so is not subject to entropy and all that--has no origin (is the origin).
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith
EIGHT: The Clues of God
Though Keller agrees it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, he asserts it is possible to weigh the accumulated weight of the clues (though they are each rationally avoidable). There are five clues presented in this chapter:
Clue 1: The Mysterious Bang -- We discussed this clue at the beginning of chapter 6’s discussion questions. Either God created the universe, or it “just happened” – and both require faith. I had thought the cyclic cosmological model was a way out of this clue, though I do not necessarily subscribe to it, however, "The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started." -- Brian Greene. For some, the question “Why something rather than nothing?” is made more unfathomable by the existence of God. Rather than (or, perhaps ‘after’) answering the question for them, God’s existence triggers more questions, like “What was God’s motivation, and doesn’t having motivation imply He was lacking something and therefore not ‘complete’?” Divine impassibility was covered at the end of chapter 3’s discussion questions, and I will again provide the link here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm It is also discussed in chapter 14.
Clue 2: The Cosmic Welcome Mat -- This clue is also called the anthropic principle (or fine-tuning argument), which recognizes that humans could not exist in any other universe than this one. If any of this universe’s constants were different, we would not be around to observe them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant These constants seem fine-tuned by God to support us. There have been several rebuttals, all requiring faith.
Clue 3: The Regularity of Nature -- At first this clue didn’t seem very convincing to me, because I had never wondered about the regularity of nature. But (as Hume and Russell pointed out), continued regularity is a matter of faith. There is nothing guaranteeing the universe will be here tomorrow, or that it will operate according to all the cycles we’ve been observing throughout the years, with all its laws. That the universe and all its cycles and laws do keep happening is a clue to a Sustainer of all that regularity.
Clue 4: The Clue of Beauty -- “We may, therefore, be secular materialists who believe truth and justice, good and evil, are complete illusions. But in the presence of art or even great natural beauty, our hearts tell us another story. … regardless of the beliefs of our mind about the random meaninglessness of life, before the face of beauty we know better. … Isn’t it true that innate desires correspond to real objects that can satisfy them? … Doesn’t the unfulfillable longing evoked by beauty qualify as an innate desire? We have a longing for joy, love, and beauty that no amount or quality of food, sex, friendship, or success can satisfy. We want something that nothing in this world can fulfill,” (134-135). Perhaps this desire is a type of sense, like sight, a type of sense built for sensing God, and so cannot be satisfied by anything in the natural universe? Have you ever felt “there must be more” when in the presence of beauty (not a mere wish)?
Clue 5: We Trust Our Belief-Forming Faculties -- First Keller talks about the clue-killer that all of our beliefs and values are naturally selected and not to be trusted – then he lets it die by its own knife: the belief that all of our beliefs and values are naturally selected and not to be trusted—is not to be trusted. Then he says that the fact that we do trust our belief-forming faculties (here we are weighing clues) is a clue to God.
*******
After reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" -- I have become more aware of inflationary theory, and the cyclic model of Steinhardt and Turok, of quantum uncertainty, superstring theory (of five string theories unified in M-theory), joining quantum mechanics and general relativity, the Higgs ocean, M-theory, branes, spacetime may not be fundamental in the sub-Planckian realm, Calabi Yau shape, dark matter/energy, higher dimensions, etc., and can tell you there are many unanswered questions, and many assumptions taken on faith as place-holders until there is rational justification to assume them. Scientists usually (at least tentatively) favor, or have confidence in (based on evidence) a theory and do research to find evidence that will confirm or conflict with it. Scientists aren't satisified with "I don't know"--that would be waving the white flag of defeat... the unforgiveable leap of faith away from discovery. All their work speaks "I can know, and I'm going to find out." Excerpts from Greene's book: "Probabilistically speaking, it is mind-bogglingly more likely that everything we now see in the universe arose from a rare but every-so-often expectable statistical aberration away from total disorder, rather than having slowly evolved from the even more likely, the incredibly more ordered, the astoundingly low-entropy starting point required by the big bang. / Yet, when we went with the odds and imagined that everything popped into existence by a statistical fluke, we found ourselves in a quagmire: that route called into question the laws of physics themselves. And so we are inclined to buck the bookies and go with a low-entropy big bang as the explanation for the arrow of time. The puzzle then is to explain how the universe began in such an unlikely, highly ordered configuration. That is the question to which the arrow of time points. It all comes down to cosmology," (176) The theories (still incomplete) mentioned above attempt to explain the answer. "...the highly successful laws of physics developed in the twentieth century break down under such intense conditions [I: in the early universe], leaving us rudderless in our quest to understand the beginning of time. We will see shortly that recent developments are providing a hopeful beacon, but for now we acknowledge our incomplete understanding of what happened at the beginning," (248). "...if inflationary cosmology is right, our ignorance [I: remains] of why there is an inflaton field, why its potential energy bowl has the right shape for inflation to have occurred, why there are space and time within which the whole discussion takes place, and, in Leibniz's more grandiose phrasing, why there is something rather than nothing," (286). "The vision is that string/M-theory will unfuzz...our ignorance of the universe's earliest moments, and after that, the cosmological drama will unfold according to inflationary theory's remarkably successful script...But, as of now...it's anybody's guess when clarity will be achieved. ... The proposal...called the cyclic model...suggest(s) that we are living within a three-brane that violently collides every few trillion years with another nearby, parallel three-brane. And the 'bang' from the collision initiates each new cosmological cycle...also known tenderly as the big splat... The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started." (404, 406, 407). Science can only study physical somethings (which science acknowledges as necessarily having a beginning)--not their nonphysical origins. God is a nonphysical something and so is not subject to entropy and all that--has no origin (is the origin).
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
RFG 7: You Can't Take the Bible Literally & Intermission
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 7: You Can't Take the Bible Literally & Intermission
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
SEVEN: You Can’t Take the Bible Literally (and) Intermission
Keller says the reason people have a problem trusting the Bible is that some or most of it is “scientifically impossible, historically unreliable, and culturally regressive,” (99-100). Chapter seven deals with the latter two, as chapter six dealt with the first one.
In answer to this: “We Can’t Trust the Bible Historically” (100) Keller replies:
“The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends,” (101). Keller mentions the gospels were written at most forty to sixty years after Jesus’ death, and Paul’s letters were written just fifteen to twenty-five years after His death – while the witnesses, believers and bystanders alike, to Jesus’ ministry, were still alive (Luke 1:1-4; Mark 15:21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-6) to confirm or dispute the details the authors were writing about. In order for altered accounts to gain acceptance, the eyewitnesses, and their offspring, must all be dead. If Jesus had never done or said the things the gospel writers and Paul wrote about – their writings never would have been accepted because the living witnesses would have stomped them down. Acts 26:26. Look at the Gnostic “gospels” in comparison: “the Syriac traditions in Thomas can be dated to 175 A.D. at the earliest, more than a hundred years after the time that the canonical gospels were in widespread use. …The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, however, were recognized as authoritative eyewitness accounts almost immediately, and so we have Irenaeus of Lyons in 160 A.D. declaring that there were four, and only four, gospels,” (103). Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” is to blame for a lot of misinformation, including the myth that Constantine decreed Christ’s divinity and suppressed all evidence of His humanity in 325 A.D., when clearly “no more than twenty years after the death of Christ, we see that Christians were worshipping Jesus as God (Philippians 2),” (103).
“The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends,” (104). Keller is answering the claim that “the gospels were written by the leaders of the early church to promote their policies, consolidate their power, and build their movement,” (104). Keller asks, if that is so, why do they not have Jesus speaking on circumcision? Why invent the story of the crucifixion, which makes Jesus look like a criminal? Why invent Jesus’ Gethsemane experience, or crying out on the cross, which makes Jesus look like a weak failure? Why make (culturally incredible) women the first witnesses of His resurrection, rather than (culturally credible) men? Why paint the apostles as “petty and jealous, almost impossibly slow-witted, and in the end as cowards who either actively or passively failed their master?” (105). Why reveal the horrible failure of Peter? None of that makes sense if the claim Keller is countering is true – it makes more sense that the authors did not feel free to fictionalize or polish up the facts. Look at the Gnostic “gospels” in comparison: being rescued from the dark, evil material world by secret gnosis appealed to Greeks and Romans, whereas the canonical gospels offended the dominant views with a “positive view of material creation and their emphasis on the poor and oppressed,” (106).
“The literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend,” (106). This is an interesting section that says, if the gospels were fiction, they “suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative,” (C.S. Lewis) – which “only developed within the last three hundred years,” (106). Keller notes there is a lot of irrelevant detail that only makes sense to include if it actually happened and was part of the author’s recollective memory. He notes that “disciples in the ancient world were expected to memorize masters’ teachings, and that many of Jesus’ statements are presented in a form that was actually designed for memorization,” (106). He also notes Jan Vansina’s “study of oral traditions in primitive African cultures, in which fictional legends and historical accounts are clearly distinguished from each other and much greater care is taken to preserve historical accounts accurately,” (108).
In answer to this: “We Can’t Trust the Bible Culturally” (109) Keller replies:
“Here’s how I advised him and other people on how to deal with a Scripture text that appeared objectionable or offensive to them. … slow down and try out several different perspectives on the issues that trouble them. …the passage that bothers them might not teach what it appears to them to be teaching. Many of the texts people find offensive can be cleared up with a decent commentary that puts the issue into historical context. … To reject the Bible as regressive is to assume that you have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is regressive and progressive can be discerned. … To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. … If Jesus is the Son of God, then we have to take his teaching seriously, including his confidence in the authority of the whole Bible. If he is not who he says he is, why should we care what the Bible says about anything else? … If you don’t trust the Bible enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God? … Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it,” (109-114).
Intermission questions: what do you think of Keller saying it is impossible to prove a belief (as strong rationalism requires) but beliefs can be evaluated to be more reasonable than others, though still rationally avoidable (the task of critical rationalism)? What do you think about Swinburne saying that “The view that there is a God…leads us to expect the things we observe—that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains human beings with consciousnesses and with an indelible moral sense. The theory that there is no God…does not lead us to expect any of these things. Therefore, belief in God offers a better empirical fit, it explains and accounts for what we see better than the alternative account of things,” (121). What do you think of Keller saying that how we come to know God is by using our minds (fideists: read: God-given minds) to evaluate what the Playwright has revealed about Himself in the play, including in writing Himself into it?
*******
Sermon notes for Tim Keller's sermon on this chapter:
Download: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=29
Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?
Luke 1:1-4; 24:13-32
Intro. to Theophilus
Road to Emmaus.
Historically/Culturally/Personally should trust the Bible.
I. Historically
Doubt: Jesus' statements/actions concocted by political winners to build their movement, suppressed evidence to the contrary.
Rebuttal:
1. NT accounts written too early to be legends. Luke (30-40 yrs later) - investigated and checked w/ eyewitnesses. Paul - (15-20 yrs later) 1 Cor 15 - many people saw Jesus after resurrection-500 at once-most still alive and you can go talk to them. Phil 2 - (15 yrs later) Paul quotes hymn in praise of Jesus' divinity. Didn't begin with Constantine-accepted from the beginning. Constantine didn't help the church win-Constantine backed a winner. These documents wouldn't have gotten off the ground and past the eyewitnesses unless the events actually happened.
2. Too counter-productive to be legends. Doesn't build any powerful movement, makes Jesus look weak when He cries blood and asks for an out, and asks God why He forgot Him. Original eyewitness were women (not considered credible in court). The apostles look dumb.
3. Too detailed to be legend. Detail (investigation, etc.) is for modern fiction-not ancient fiction. C.S. Lewis. Either this is reportage, or modern fiction anticipated in ancient times (the author taking on historical pseudonyms).
4. If you accept NT, accept what Jesus accepted == OT.
II. Culturally
Doubt: Offensive, primitive, regressive.
Rebuttal: how to handle these parts of the Bible:
1. May not teach what you think it teaches. How the patriarchs treat women-polygamy, buying/selling-"Art of Biblical Narrative" by Robert Altar: "polygamy and primogenitor …wreaks havoc in every generation, the younger son is always favored by God".
2. Might misunderstand due to own cultural blinders. Disciples misunderstand prophecies about messiah because focused on Jews, not whole world. Bible does not condone slavery-when Paul says "slaves obey your masters" he is referring to indentured servanthood. Murray Harris-back then, slaves were indistinguishable from others, often more educated than their masters, made same wages as free laborers and could buy themselves out, very few slaves for life. Though modern slave owners tried to use scripture to defend slavery-they misused it-they read it through their cultural blinders.
3. May think your cultural 'moment' is superior, when it isn't. Western ear: sexual rules bad, forgiveness good. Middle-eastern ear: sex rules good (could be more strict), forgiving enemies-crazy. Examine cultural assumptions. The truth will challenge every culture at some point. So if it challenges you-that's a good reason to trust it.
III. Personally
Doubt: Trust in authority of Bible is cold, legalistic kind of faith.
Rebuttal: is prerequisite for warm, trusting relationship with Christ. "were not our hearts burning within us as He opened to us the Scripture?" heart: seat of whole person burn: uncontrollable desire for someone - as He opened to us the Scripture. V.27 --It ain't about anybody in the Bible (legalistic: be awesome on your own!)--it's about what God did through them and would do as Jesus. It's about what our hearts burn for. If the Bible has no authority, if we don't submit to it, we've got a Stepford God. We must be challenged, and that cannot happen if we pick and choose and put a chip in Him-making Him in our image. Jesus bled Scripture.
Study guide: http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Literalism_Isnt_the_Bible_Historic.pdf
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
SEVEN: You Can’t Take the Bible Literally (and) Intermission
Keller says the reason people have a problem trusting the Bible is that some or most of it is “scientifically impossible, historically unreliable, and culturally regressive,” (99-100). Chapter seven deals with the latter two, as chapter six dealt with the first one.
In answer to this: “We Can’t Trust the Bible Historically” (100) Keller replies:
“The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends,” (101). Keller mentions the gospels were written at most forty to sixty years after Jesus’ death, and Paul’s letters were written just fifteen to twenty-five years after His death – while the witnesses, believers and bystanders alike, to Jesus’ ministry, were still alive (Luke 1:1-4; Mark 15:21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-6) to confirm or dispute the details the authors were writing about. In order for altered accounts to gain acceptance, the eyewitnesses, and their offspring, must all be dead. If Jesus had never done or said the things the gospel writers and Paul wrote about – their writings never would have been accepted because the living witnesses would have stomped them down. Acts 26:26. Look at the Gnostic “gospels” in comparison: “the Syriac traditions in Thomas can be dated to 175 A.D. at the earliest, more than a hundred years after the time that the canonical gospels were in widespread use. …The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, however, were recognized as authoritative eyewitness accounts almost immediately, and so we have Irenaeus of Lyons in 160 A.D. declaring that there were four, and only four, gospels,” (103). Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” is to blame for a lot of misinformation, including the myth that Constantine decreed Christ’s divinity and suppressed all evidence of His humanity in 325 A.D., when clearly “no more than twenty years after the death of Christ, we see that Christians were worshipping Jesus as God (Philippians 2),” (103).
“The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends,” (104). Keller is answering the claim that “the gospels were written by the leaders of the early church to promote their policies, consolidate their power, and build their movement,” (104). Keller asks, if that is so, why do they not have Jesus speaking on circumcision? Why invent the story of the crucifixion, which makes Jesus look like a criminal? Why invent Jesus’ Gethsemane experience, or crying out on the cross, which makes Jesus look like a weak failure? Why make (culturally incredible) women the first witnesses of His resurrection, rather than (culturally credible) men? Why paint the apostles as “petty and jealous, almost impossibly slow-witted, and in the end as cowards who either actively or passively failed their master?” (105). Why reveal the horrible failure of Peter? None of that makes sense if the claim Keller is countering is true – it makes more sense that the authors did not feel free to fictionalize or polish up the facts. Look at the Gnostic “gospels” in comparison: being rescued from the dark, evil material world by secret gnosis appealed to Greeks and Romans, whereas the canonical gospels offended the dominant views with a “positive view of material creation and their emphasis on the poor and oppressed,” (106).
“The literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend,” (106). This is an interesting section that says, if the gospels were fiction, they “suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative,” (C.S. Lewis) – which “only developed within the last three hundred years,” (106). Keller notes there is a lot of irrelevant detail that only makes sense to include if it actually happened and was part of the author’s recollective memory. He notes that “disciples in the ancient world were expected to memorize masters’ teachings, and that many of Jesus’ statements are presented in a form that was actually designed for memorization,” (106). He also notes Jan Vansina’s “study of oral traditions in primitive African cultures, in which fictional legends and historical accounts are clearly distinguished from each other and much greater care is taken to preserve historical accounts accurately,” (108).
In answer to this: “We Can’t Trust the Bible Culturally” (109) Keller replies:
“Here’s how I advised him and other people on how to deal with a Scripture text that appeared objectionable or offensive to them. … slow down and try out several different perspectives on the issues that trouble them. …the passage that bothers them might not teach what it appears to them to be teaching. Many of the texts people find offensive can be cleared up with a decent commentary that puts the issue into historical context. … To reject the Bible as regressive is to assume that you have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is regressive and progressive can be discerned. … To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. … If Jesus is the Son of God, then we have to take his teaching seriously, including his confidence in the authority of the whole Bible. If he is not who he says he is, why should we care what the Bible says about anything else? … If you don’t trust the Bible enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God? … Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it,” (109-114).
Intermission questions: what do you think of Keller saying it is impossible to prove a belief (as strong rationalism requires) but beliefs can be evaluated to be more reasonable than others, though still rationally avoidable (the task of critical rationalism)? What do you think about Swinburne saying that “The view that there is a God…leads us to expect the things we observe—that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains human beings with consciousnesses and with an indelible moral sense. The theory that there is no God…does not lead us to expect any of these things. Therefore, belief in God offers a better empirical fit, it explains and accounts for what we see better than the alternative account of things,” (121). What do you think of Keller saying that how we come to know God is by using our minds (fideists: read: God-given minds) to evaluate what the Playwright has revealed about Himself in the play, including in writing Himself into it?
*******
Sermon notes for Tim Keller's sermon on this chapter:
Download: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=29
Literalism: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?
Luke 1:1-4; 24:13-32
Intro. to Theophilus
Road to Emmaus.
Historically/Culturally/Personally should trust the Bible.
I. Historically
Doubt: Jesus' statements/actions concocted by political winners to build their movement, suppressed evidence to the contrary.
Rebuttal:
1. NT accounts written too early to be legends. Luke (30-40 yrs later) - investigated and checked w/ eyewitnesses. Paul - (15-20 yrs later) 1 Cor 15 - many people saw Jesus after resurrection-500 at once-most still alive and you can go talk to them. Phil 2 - (15 yrs later) Paul quotes hymn in praise of Jesus' divinity. Didn't begin with Constantine-accepted from the beginning. Constantine didn't help the church win-Constantine backed a winner. These documents wouldn't have gotten off the ground and past the eyewitnesses unless the events actually happened.
2. Too counter-productive to be legends. Doesn't build any powerful movement, makes Jesus look weak when He cries blood and asks for an out, and asks God why He forgot Him. Original eyewitness were women (not considered credible in court). The apostles look dumb.
3. Too detailed to be legend. Detail (investigation, etc.) is for modern fiction-not ancient fiction. C.S. Lewis. Either this is reportage, or modern fiction anticipated in ancient times (the author taking on historical pseudonyms).
4. If you accept NT, accept what Jesus accepted == OT.
II. Culturally
Doubt: Offensive, primitive, regressive.
Rebuttal: how to handle these parts of the Bible:
1. May not teach what you think it teaches. How the patriarchs treat women-polygamy, buying/selling-"Art of Biblical Narrative" by Robert Altar: "polygamy and primogenitor …wreaks havoc in every generation, the younger son is always favored by God".
2. Might misunderstand due to own cultural blinders. Disciples misunderstand prophecies about messiah because focused on Jews, not whole world. Bible does not condone slavery-when Paul says "slaves obey your masters" he is referring to indentured servanthood. Murray Harris-back then, slaves were indistinguishable from others, often more educated than their masters, made same wages as free laborers and could buy themselves out, very few slaves for life. Though modern slave owners tried to use scripture to defend slavery-they misused it-they read it through their cultural blinders.
3. May think your cultural 'moment' is superior, when it isn't. Western ear: sexual rules bad, forgiveness good. Middle-eastern ear: sex rules good (could be more strict), forgiving enemies-crazy. Examine cultural assumptions. The truth will challenge every culture at some point. So if it challenges you-that's a good reason to trust it.
III. Personally
Doubt: Trust in authority of Bible is cold, legalistic kind of faith.
Rebuttal: is prerequisite for warm, trusting relationship with Christ. "were not our hearts burning within us as He opened to us the Scripture?" heart: seat of whole person burn: uncontrollable desire for someone - as He opened to us the Scripture. V.27 --It ain't about anybody in the Bible (legalistic: be awesome on your own!)--it's about what God did through them and would do as Jesus. It's about what our hearts burn for. If the Bible has no authority, if we don't submit to it, we've got a Stepford God. We must be challenged, and that cannot happen if we pick and choose and put a chip in Him-making Him in our image. Jesus bled Scripture.
Study guide: http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Literalism_Isnt_the_Bible_Historic.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)