Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 02:40 PM CDT

Quote by: Richard_Schletty Thanks, Jack. Listening now to Tim Keller's "The Reason For God". Good words. Need new eyes? .

Here's Keller speaking and taking questions at Google:

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 07:39 PM CDT

Chikoppi asked-

OK. How then would you characterize the basis of religious belief?

It's quite a bit like the way you have characterized science. At some point in life a person becomes persuaded that there is a God, in the early stages of that faith it's just like postulating a theory, then throughout his life he tests and observes and researches, and holds onto the things that prove true. If there is an idea or doctrine that doesn't seem to be consistant with that truth, he checks his theory or his interpretation of the data, as well as the data itself. It's a life long process, and people are at different stages of that process.

But only a fringe sect of christianity believes that things are true because they want them to be true, and the bible doesn't teach that at all.

* Post Removed *
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 09:14 PM CDT

* This message has been removed *

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 12:23 AM CDT

Quote by: Richard_Schletty I don’t mention it in [The Reason for God , but I think there are always doubts that, if you come to grips with them—I think there’s doubts that you have, that you always have, that you ought to be more forthright and address them, for two reasons. One is, then you’re a better apologist. Because now people are coming shootin’ stuff at you in a way they wouldn’t when I was growing up...

I caught Keller on C-SPAN during his book tour some time ago. I have to admit, I kinda like the guy. I think he's sincere and well-meaning. I absolutely respect him for engaging in the discussion and facing criticism head on and with good nature.

That said, I don't think his reasoning is at all consistent. His argument is thoroughly a priori and he cites principles of logic when doing so supports his conclusion and disregards them when they don't. He's also a bit of a religious bigot. His rationale for why Christianity is the only true religion (as I understand it) is even more specious than his supposed proof of a divine creator.

I did enjoy his presentation and the following Q&A. I'd love to see him debate Dawkins or Hitchens (preferably Dawkins, as Hitchens is too acidic and derisive).

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 12:47 AM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi Quote by: Richard_Schletty I don’t mention it in [The Reason for God , but I think there are always doubts that, if you come to grips with them—I think there’s doubts that you have, that you always have, that you ought to be more forthright and address them, for two reasons. One is, then you’re a better apologist. Because now people are coming shootin’ stuff at you in a way they wouldn’t when I was growing up... I caught Keller on C-SPAN during his book tour some time ago. I have to admit, I kinda like the guy. I think he's sincere and well-meaning. I absolutely respect him for engaging in the discussion and facing criticism head on and with good nature. That said, I don't think his reasoning is at all consistent. His argument is thoroughly a priori and he cites principles of logic when doing so supports his conclusion and disregards them when they don't. He's also a bit of a religious bigot. His rationale for why Christianity is the only true religion (as I understand it) is even more specious than his supposed proof of a divine creator. I did enjoy his presentation and the following Q&A. I'd love to see him debate Dawkins or Hitchens (preferably Dawkins, as Hitchens is too acidic and derisive).

chikoppi... Keller a bigot? Unless you are redefining the word, I can only assume you're saying that out of ignorance. I have heard him speak many times and have read his only two books and several of his publications. He is on record acknowledging that Christians have no corner on good or moral behaviour (which btw is not the mark of a christian), in fact he tells the story of his friend and neighbor (either Muslim or Hindu, I can't remember) and how that person really is a more upright moral man than he. He also tells the story how he has sat down together with Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu "clerics" and they all affirm they each have the only correct and true religion and have no problem that the other thinks they do... each just thinks the other is wrong and they respect the conviction of each other. To be a bigot one must be someone "who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial, religious, or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." That is not Keller.

Bigot is not a word that should be thrown around lightly.

D

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 02:39 AM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2 chikoppi... Keller a bigot? Unless you are redefining the word, I can only assume you're saying that out of ignorance. I have heard him speak many times and have read his only two books and several of his publications. He is on record acknowledging that Christians have no corner on good or moral behaviour (which btw is not the mark of a christian), in fact he tells the story of his friend and neighbor (either Muslim or Hindu, I can't remember) and how that person really is a more upright moral man than he. He also tells the story how he has sat down together with Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu "clerics" and they all affirm they each have the only correct and true religion and have no problem that the other thinks they do... each just thinks the other is wrong and they respect the conviction of each other. To be a bigot one must be someone "who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial, religious, or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." That is not Keller. Bigot is not a word that should be thrown around lightly.

I readily admit to having only passing familiarity with his cannon an he may have made statements that contradict the few opinions I have heard him express. However, he does assert in the above embedded video that Christianity is the ONLY possible true religion. This, to me, denies others the validity of their own determination in matters of faith.

Perhaps "bigot" is too strong a word in that it carries an implication of intolerance that, I agree, Keller does not demonstrate. I will defer to your justified objections and accuse him of merely "religious snobbery."

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 03:01 AM CDT

Quote by: pablatone If there is no God, then there is no reason to get upset about the suffering in the world, it's just the way things are, get over it. So the only thing an atheist can to say to the mother of a dying child is "sorry, that's just your bad luck." The atheist is not exempt from giving an answer to the problem of evil. The answers Jesus gives to the core questions in life make more sense than anything Dawkins has proposed. And He offers hope, something a materialist cannot do.

Wow.

This is by far the most ignorant post I've seen in this entire forum. Far more belligerent and closed minded than anything the “ronnielong” persona could ever drum up.

Looks like its already being hashed out though... so I can retire from this one...

Just let me point out, at first glance, it seems you suggest that someone lacks compassion, and overall HUMAN emotion, just because one does not believe in YOUR definition of “god”.

If you believe otherwise, you should have clarified straight away.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 08:13 AM CDT

Dawkins makes sense



I did enjoy his presentation and the following Q&A. I'd love to see him debate Dawkins or Hitchens (preferably Dawkins, as Hitchens is too acidic and derisive).
[/QUOTE]

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 08:18 AM CDT

Quote by: Ibstrat Dawkins makes sense

Another person to state theory as fact....

(Edit: because he has Faith in it, and Believes it is true)

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 08:53 AM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi Perhaps "bigot" is too strong a word in that it carries an implication of intolerance that, I agree, Keller does not demonstrate. I will defer to your justified objections and accuse him of merely "religious snobbery."

And I accept (though disagree with) your new formulation as inbounds. Though by definition the major (and many others) religions believe their faiths to be the only true religion. That makes a lot of us religious snobs, I guess. That was the point of my example above concerning his conversations with clerics of other faiths. They each believed their religion held the only ultimate truth and yet had tolerance and respect for the other persons.

as they say, peace bro!

Jack