Wednesday, October 8, 2008

BOOK CLUB PRESESSION NOTES -- WEEK 5 -- PP.115-142

INTERMISSION

1. How does Tim Keller answer the question, "What is Christianity?" (p. 116)? Why, in the context of a discussion about belief/unbelief (and its attacks on Christian faith), does he think this an important question? (How do fundamentalists answer the question)? Christianity is a "body of believers who assent to these great ecumenical creeds." Common beliefs such as God created the earth, Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, that he was crucified, and that he rose again after the third day bring us together. There are differences in worship styles that set us apart. The fundamentalist says that Christianity is what they say it is.

2. ".........we are all deeply interested in seeing the case for God go one way or the other" (p. 119). What factors cause us to care "deeply" whether or not God exists?

We will believe in one thing or another. The passion to believe in something brings us to take a closer look at God.
3. "The approach I will take in the rest of this volume is called 'critical rationality' (p. 120). He uses it to argue that belief in God may be a leap of faith, but it isn't a blind leap (CM's words). What is critical rationality? (additional question: What does the phrase "explanatory power" on p. 122 mean)?

Critical rationality "assumes that there are some arguements that many or even the most rational people will find convincing, even though there is no arguement that will be persuasive to everyone regardless of viewpoint." Explanatory power is the best explanation for the way things are.

4. What does ".....all arguments are rationally avoidable in the end" (p. 120) mean?

Some arguements are more rational than others. All arguements are rationally avoidable in the end.
CHAPTER 8 -- THE CLUES OF GOD

1. What are "divine fingerprints" (p. 127)? Why might it be a better idea to think of them as "clues" rather than "proofs" (p. 128)?

You can see God's imprint on everything around us. There is no way to prove it but the evidence is everywhere.

2. Assuming that the world(s) we know began with a Big Bang, what is the heart of Keller's argument that "Everything we know in this world is 'contingent,' has a cause outside of itself" (p. 129). What does the word "contingent" mean in this context?
That the Big bang may have happened but it was put into effect by God.

3. Francis Collins said, "When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming" (p. 130). What line of reasoning would one use to argue from this to a belief in God (the "Fine-Tuning Argument")? (Why did the gamblers aim their six-shooters at the dealer in a game of poker)?

The fine tuning arguement is rationally avoidable. However, for the sake of aguement Keller talks about all of the things that line up to make a universe ready for us. Ready and fine tuned because a God that we serve has put it into motion. The gamblers aim their six shooters he has dealt himself twenty hands straight of four aces in the same poker game. Assuming that there has been cheating the arguement begins. When in reality the luck of the dealer could be real.
4. "As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. ............... As a clue for God, however, it is helpful" (p. 132). How so?

5. Beauty argues in behalf of the existence of God. ("Updike seems to be saying that regardless of the beliefs of our mind about the random meaninglessness of life, before the face of beauty we know better" -- p. 134). In this context, what are "innate desires" (p. 135) How does the innate human desire for beauty serve as a "major clue that God is there."

God has given us a yearning for beauty.

6. What do modern atheists pose as a "Clue Killer" -- that which would argue that "the clues are clues to nothing" (p. 136)? Keller deals lengthily with this argument, but in the end is dismissive of it in the paragraph on p. 139 which begins, "It comes down to this." Summarize his argument.
(Hint: " ...... if this argument proves anything at all it proves too much -- p. 140).

No comments: