Chapter 10 Sin and Utopia

Here's what I got out of our discussion about chapter 10:

Samantha brought up the interesting point that this chapter doesn't seem to fit in with the general tone of the book. I hadn't thought of it while I was reading it, but it is somewhat different. Keller presents an explanation of Sin, but doesn't take it all the way to relating that explanation to explaining the Christian worldview and Gospel to unbelievers. (Maybe upcoming in chapter 11)
Upon thinking about Keller's presentation, one of the most outstanding points that he makes, in my opinion, is that the idea of the Fall is not present in mythical creation stories. Most of them assume that violence, death, jealousy, etc. have always existed among the gods or that the world was the product of some cosmic calamity. This is different from the Christian claim that in he beginning everything was good and that Sin polluted everything. It presents hope also, because there is the possibility of restoration to an unpolluted state. I think that is a powerful explanation for evil in the world. Without sin, why shouldn't we eventually expect a Utopia to develop?

The Debate- Can We Be Good Without God

I'm curious about what everyone thought about the debate. Was it helpful?

Here's my take. The question cannot be answered well without a view of God as sovereign to help us understand what it is to be good. Defining "being good," as "acting in a way to minimize harm, or intending to minimize harm," is a strange definition. The only word I can think of that describes how this makes me feel is -hopeless-. Is that the highest goal that a Humanist is striving for; to minimize harm? It seems like such a pitiful goal. I could sit in my house and never interact with anyone thereby causing as little harm as possible. Would this be considered a good life by this definition? It is such a passive definition. It denies the existence of virtue. Ironically, all kinds of virtues from charity to artistic beauty were discussed in the debate.
I think it would be hard to debate this idea from a Christian perspective without getting specific. I thought that D'Souza could have started from a simple definition of: being good = loving God and loving people. I think that may have at least provided a starting point so that he could discuss why Christianity is not just a "toddler mentality," where we do what daddy says so we don't get a spanking (although that is, I believe, a legitimate motivation) , but it is childlike in another way where we acknowledge that we are inferior, ignorant, dependent creatures who need daddy. Also, pointing out the big difference between the two Worldviews- Humans are Basically Good vs. Humans are Really Bad- would have clarified a lot.
Also, in my humble opinion, a simple NO would have been a better answer to the question rather than 'We can be good but we won't know why.'
I think for me the most helpful part of the debate was listening to Barker's definitons and reasoning. It is good to understand better what someone really believes and why they believe it if our goal is to help them see the truth.

Chapter 8 part 2 - or- Out of the same mouth the Holy and profane

I was thinking that the main point of this chapter might be summarized like this: People who do not believe in God and do believe that all of our moral faculties and desires are merely evolutionary leftovers, do not live their beliefs out. However, I'm not sure of this statement's power in reasoning with someone. As Keller points out, all of his arguments or clues are rationally avoidable. It's the weight of the mounting clues that is supposed to add up.
I've been thinking that Samantha's statement that 'people just don't want to think that much,' is the big clue killer. For example...
I say: You believe that the universe came in to being by a random turn of events in a scenario in which anything could have happened. Why do you expect the universe to continue in it's regular patterns when you have no reason to?
Skeptic says: If in the next moment everything changes, if I still exist, I will behave according to my new circumstances. I have no choice but to expect regularity, because that's my only experience. -or- I don't know, that's just the way it happens.
I say: You believe that love and desire for beauty are merely leftover emotions that helped our species survive better in the past, so why do you continue to allow those phantom feelings to play a central role in dictating your behavior?
Skeptic says: The feelings are stronger than my will. -or- I enjoy the feelings and that's all I care about. -or- I don't know, I just don't think about it like that.

These clues are on a philosophical level that most of us don't think about every day. We just react to the way things are. How can we expect nonbelievers to live in a way that is consistent with their professed world-view, when most of the time we live in rebellion against reality though we know the truth?
Mark Driscoll in discussing culture says,
"While it is important to recognize that ideas have consequences, I would discourage overemphasizing the cognitive aspect of your culture. It is common... for Christians to believe that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the actions and philisophical framework underlying any person's moral decision-making process.
The truth is that most people are contradictions..." (The Radical Reformission pg. 95)

I think there is one important distinction between our Christian hypocrisy and the Nonbelievers intellectual inconsistency. Anyone else see a distinction.

Thoughts on Eight from a Greenhouse

Saturday Kristi and I were walking though one of the local greenhouses in St Paul. On really cold winter days I like to wander around scheming my plan of attack on the garden. (This is a different story.) As we walked around looking at the orchids we both were struck by the obvious clue of God laid out before our eyes. Wherever we looked we saw complexity, beauty, order, variety and other evidences of God's existence. Nothing that we saw supported the idea that any of this was the result of chaos or random effect. 

Chapter 7- Taking the Bible literally

I found this chapter to be quite helpful. I like the idea of looking at what preconceived notions we bring to the table when talking about the reliability of the Bible. Without even debating any of the facts or historical events recounted, you can maybe help yourself or someone else understand why he refuses to trust the Bible. I find this concept especially helpful when I encounter a passage that teaches something that I don't necessarily think I want to believe. Rather than squeeze the passage until it fits into my misshapen theology, I need to examine what beliefs I hold that cause me to reject the new doctrine and determine the source of those beliefs.

It took me quite a while to accept the Doctrines of Grace when I was introduced to them. If I had evaluated my beliefs at the time in the way Keller describes, rather than clinging to them because I wanted them to be true, I may have been able to see the truth sooner. I wonder what beliefs I hold now that are based on tradition or ignorance.
Ed
ps.- I like this song. It's about St. Augustine's conversion, but it reminds me of the way I feel when I realize that I have been fighting to hold onto faith in something false- "Augustine just woke up with a broken heart. All this time, he's never been awake before."
http://www.last.fm/music/Switchfoot/New+Way+to+Be+Human/Something+More

Chapter 6 -Science and the Bible

I know I got us a little off track during our discussion of this chapter. I thought that the chapter was very unhelpful and assumed that to be the case. Thank you to Amanda and Kami for pointing out how helpful this chapter was to you in terms of talking to your coworkers and friends. If anyone would like to author a post that deals more directly with the main ideas of this chapter, please do.
Because I have a different view than Keller about the importance of a literal Genisis in terms of sound doctrine and evangelism, I am including a link to a summary of what I believe is the important question when discussing whether or not we take the creation account in Genesis literally. The Answers in Genesis site does have some stuff that I think I disagree with (like teaching "creation science" in schools and some really tacky cartoons), but on this point, I think they are dead on. The first time I heard this argument presented, I did a 180 on the issue. Check it out and leave some comments.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution
Ed