Tuesday, September 30, 2008

BOOK CLUB PRESESSION NOTES -- WEEK 4 -- PP 84-126

CHAPTER 6 --- SCIENCE HAS DISPROVED CHRISTIANITY

1. Many moderns are "armed with ......(a) presupposition" (p. 85) which causes them to leap to the conclusion that science has disproved traditional religion (In particular, that miracles are impossible). What is the presupposition?

The presupposition is that miracles do not happen. " The more intelligent, rational,and scientific minded you are the less you will be able to believe in God."

2. Keller says this conclusion is a "leap of faith" (p. 85), a "philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding" (p. 86). Why, from Keller's reasoning, is science not equipped to deal with the possibility of miracles or the validity of transcendant religion?

Science can only deal with empirical things.

3. Keller says, "If there is a Creator God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles" (p. 86). How so?

If he created the world he can do with it as he chooses.

4. Keller says that some Christians apparently see nothing wrong believing in evolution as a process (presumably one that gradually evolved man from lower life forms), but does question a believer accepting "philosophical naturalism" (p. 87). What is philosophical naturalism and how do you feel about a Christian belief in evolution which stops short of it?

Philosophical naturalism is "the view that everything has a natural cause and that organic life is solely the product of random forces guided by no one".

5. Ian Barbour speaks of four ways science and religion might relate to each other: "conflict, dialogue, integration and independence" (p. 88). Which of these is predominant in the minds of creationists who have the view that "Genesis 1 makes any kind of evolutionary process impossible"? (p. 88).

The conflict between the two does not open up to debate. There is no conversation.

6. "Scientists, like non-scientists, are very effected by the beliefs and atitudes of the people from whom they want respect" (p. 90). What does this reveal about scientists (perhaps like Richard Dawkins) who argue that science has disproved religion?

That our peer group and social contacts shape our beliefs much more than we want to admit.

7. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven (Hebrews 11). It could be argued therefore that the atheism of men like Richard Dawkins which ridicules religious belief is itself a religion. Why?
The disbelief itself is a belief.

CHAPTER 7 -- YOU CAN'T TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY

1. If the Bible can be discredited it need not be taken seriously. Modern Biblical criticism is believed by many to have done just that. Keller clearly believes that Scripture is inspired by God and must be taken seriously indeed. In this chapter he gives some of his reasoning. How do you defend the reliability/authority of the Bible? Or, if you question it, why?

The main defense is that the Bible is God's spoken word.

2. What does the author mean when he says "The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends." (p. 101)?

3. What does he mean in saying, "The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends." (p. 104)? (hint: "The only plausible reason that all of these incidents would be included in these accounts is that they actually happened" - p. 105).

If it was legend there are things that would not have been included in the Bible.

4. What does he mean when he says, "The literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend." (p. 106) (hint: "In modern novels, details are added to create the aura of realism, but that was never the case in ancient fiction" -- p. 106).

5. How does Keller answer the argument made by those who reject Christianity because it seems "to support slavery and the subjugation of women." (p. 109)? (hint: "........... the cultural and historical distance between us and the writers and readers of the original text" -- p. 110).



6. "I urge people to consider that their problem with some texts might be based on an unexamined belief in the superiority of their historical moment over all others" (p. 111). What's he saying? (hint: "To reject the Bible as regressive is to ssume that you have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is regressive and progressive can be discerned" -- p. 111).



7. "Many of the beliefs of our grandparents and great-grandparents now seem silly and even embarrassing to us. That process is not going to stop now" (p. 112). What does that say about the things we believe?

8. What is a "Stepford God" (p. 114)?

1 comment:

Paula said...

I would urge everyone who can to come to the book club meetings themselves. I will continue to try and put the group response on the blog for all to see and comment.