Wed 3 Dec, 2008
Timothy Keller’s Talks on “The Reason for God”
8:02 am Comments (8) Filed under: EvidencesTags: Book Review
Many people have commented on Timothy Keller’s book The Reason for God. I thought I had done a review myself, but I can’t find it! That’s what happens when you blog for a while–it’s hard to keep track of what you’ve done.
Here’s the short, better-late-than-never version: it’s one of the best books written lately on how Christianity makes sense. Its chief virtue is in the way Keller takes contemporary objections very seriously, and in the clear, rational, Biblically and historically informed approach he takes to providing answers.
Yet when I read it I was somewhat disappointed, let down. Why? Because I had already listened to his talks on the same topics. He’s an excellent writer, but an even better speaker. If you have to choose one or the other, listen to the talks. (They have the further advantage of being free downloads.) If you’re going to do both, read first, listen later, and learn both ways.
Excellent.
I love the book and thank you for the links.
On page 77, Keller criticises somebody for asking somebody else to bring him water, simply because he is being burned alive.
No wonder the guy was in Hell, as he was such a selfish person he expected other people to bring him water, just because he was on fire.
Steven, I don’t have my copy of the book here to straighten out the distortion in what you just wrote. I think, though, that most readers will recognize it as such even without the full context.
The quality of character you are ascribing to Keller is that of a complete moral monster. It’s an unlikely way for any person to be, a charge that needs to be backed up with facts if it’s going to be brought forth. If you’re going to say that about someone–even someone you disagree with–you ought at least to approach it with enough honesty to tell us what he actually said.
If you’re not going to do that, then I’m confident readers here will have enough discernment to simply ignore what you’ve written.
Anybody can turn to page 77 of Keller’s book and see that he criticises somebody being tormented by flames for the almighty selfishness of asking somebody to be his water carrier and fetch water to him.
The ‘full context’ is that the rich man claims to be ‘in agony’, which Keller never mentions.
‘Commentators have noted the astonishing amount of denial, blame-shifting, and spiritual blindness in this soul in hell’
Gosh, all he did was ask someone to fetch him water, because he was in agony with flames.
Want any more of what Keller ‘actually said’?
‘The quality of character you are ascribing to Keller is that of a complete moral monster.’
And that was *before* I start to quote what he said about somebody asking for someone to fetch him water, because he was in agony.
Just wait till I finish quoting Keller!
I’ll tell you what, Steven: I’ll make this a lot easier for you. You don’t have to tell us what Keller said. You don’t need to inform us, as you have (inaccurately), that the man in hell did nothing whatever, at any point in his whole existence, besides ask for a cup of water. You don’t have to “finish quoting Keller.” (But then, I don’t know why you said you were going to do that, because you already gave us “the full context” in your prior comment: a grand total of 2 words in quotes there; which Keller actually did mention, by the way, or did you get those two words from a different source?)
Anyway, I’ll take the burden of quoting off of you. We can all read the passage for ourselves on Amazon online reader. (Amazon.com free registration may be required. If the link doesn’t take you to the correct location, do a search for “Lazarus,” and then click the link for page 77.)
So you can relax about quoting Keller in full now. Don’t think, though, that you’re off the hook in terms of taking him out of context in comments like these.
Here’s what I keep advising people like you who are strong opponents of Christianity: if you want to argue against Christian belief, it’s not very effective, not very persuasive, for you to argue against things we’re not actually saying. Anybody who has ever said or written anything can be made to look the fool by the technique you’re using: tiny snippets, coupled with sneering. But in fact the real foolishness is to use the snippet-and-sneer tactic.
I see Tom doesn’t bother trying to justify what Keller said.
Of course asking for water was what Keller singled out as especially worthy of criticism in the rich man.
As anybody can see by reading that page and the next one.
What does Keller use as evidence of the character of people in Hell, (as he has no actual evidence even that Hell exists)
Keller uses a made-up parable back-up for his fantasy about what people in Hell are like.
And then Keller cites a novel by C.S.Lewis as ‘evidence’ about people in Hell.
Can you imagine the laughter if The God Delusion said Christians liked tormenting women, and as ‘proof’ Dawkins cited a Hammer horror movie about a Witch finder General?
But if Lewis sits at his desk and writes a story about what people in Hell are like, Christian apologists like Timothy Keller actually discuss it as though Lewis wasn’t just making it all up!
I’m content for now just getting us to deal with what he said, rather than with distortions of what he said.