Another Example of Christian Apologetic Deceit

Tim Keller: Dishonest and Deceitful

New York City Pastor Tim Keller has provided Christians with a fresh reminder of how to convert atheists to their world view.  This article appeared on The Christian Post’s website and is titled, “Tim Keller on How to Provide a Rational Justification for the Christian Faith”.  Similar to all other attempts at apologetics, it is false, attempts to misdirect the reader/non-believer, has no basis in anything rational, confuses the distinction between knowledge and faith, and fails miserably.  Let us take a look.

Keller writes, “I try to show that it takes faith to doubt Christianity, because any worldview (including secularism or skepticism) is based on assumptions.”  This statement is just plain wrong.  It does not take “faith” to doubt Christianity at all.  I doubt Christianity because I can point out many holes in the narrative of the Christian faith over the last 2,000 years.  This does not require faith.  It requires critical thinking and some reading and studying.  Faith is not needed.  In much the same way that faith is not needed to doubt the existence of unicorns in my backyard.

Keller continues this line of thought with the following:

“[T]here are all sorts of things you can’t prove rationally or empirically. You can’t prove to me that you’re not really a butterfly dreaming you’re a person. (Haven’t you seen The Matrix?) You can’t prove most of the things you believe, so at least recognize that you have faith.”

Statements like these really annoy me when it comes to apologists.  The above statements are foolish, incorrect, and an attempt to deceive the credulous.  Keller is correct, I cannot prove to him that I am, in fact not a butterfly dreaming this entire episode.  However, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that I am not a lone butterfly and all that I experience is not a dream.  The Matrix?  Really, is that where apologetics has progressed?  Let us say that Keller is right.  If I am a butterfly dreaming the entire universe as I perceive it, who cares if I believe in god or Christianity?  Why is he(Keller) concerned enough to even write his piece as attempt to convert atheists to Christianity.  In fact, Keller doesn’t even exist, after all I am just a simple butterfly dreaming this whole thing up right?  I must be a very confused butterfly.  What a strange dream this must be too.  I mean, there are people acting on this post right now, trying to convert people to Christianity all over the place, using Keller’s advice and I will never even know about those mini-dramas, yet I suppose they are all a part of my matrix-like dream.  Keller’s own argument of the butterfly works against him.  If he is nothing more than a dreaming butterfly, why even bother to do what he does?

He also writes that we cannot prove most of what we believe.  That is also false.  Most of what I believe is quite provable—even if not by me.  For example, I do not have the scientific knowledge to explain exactly how evolution works—yet most evolutionary biologists have zero trouble fielding that question and pointing to the many experiments, data, and science to prove it.  The same holds true for all of the scientific fields.  Can I personally explain all of the mathematics and science involved?  No.  But they can.

At this point the careful apologist says “A ha—you have to take what they on faith because you personally cannot verify it”.  This too is a false statement.  If one lone biologist was out promoting evolution the apologist would be correct.  However, when a theory such as evolution has been vetted by supported by the entire community of experts on the matter, my faith is not needed.  They have checked each other’s work, the evidence exists.  I have simply chosen a different life path than that of evolutionary biologist.  Faith is not needed at all to support anything that I believe.

Keller’s statement is pure and utter nonsense.  Anyone, and I mean anyone, with any ability for critical thinking should be able to see that.  It is nothing more than an attempt to deceive the credulous into thinking that they hold beliefs which they cannot prove.  Baloney.  Simply because each of us cannot prove by demonstration everything we believe, does not at all mean that those beliefs have not been proven by many people, many times over.  If we were to live as Keller suggests, then none of us would believe anything is true other than what is right in front of us at that moment.  Heck, I can’t even prove to you that I had a bowl of cereal for breakfast at this point in the day.

Keller then addresses objections to Christianity such as why does god allow suffering.  To this he “answers”:

“Really? There could be all sorts of good reasons why God allowed something to happen that caused suffering, despite our inability to think of them. If you’ve got an infinite God big enough to be mad at for the suffering in the world, then you also have an infinite God big enough to have reasons for it that you can’t think of.”

I put the word “answers” in quotes above because Keller does not actually answer anything.  His entire statement is a cop-out.  It assumes that a god exists in the first place.  It then assumes that we cannot possibly what this god is thinking or why he does what he does.  Anyone with a clear head on their shoulders would ask for some explanation as to why we should assume any of that.

It is sheer nonsense to imply that god may see suffering as an ultimate good.  Further if he did, he would be, by our standards one evil bastard.  And let us be honest, that is not the description that most Christians portray or believe of their god.  They portray him as all loving, all forgiving, omni-benevolent, etc.  They cannot claim that god is mysterious and we cannot know his ways, then at the same time, run around preaching about how great god is and what he wants (no abortions, anti-gay marriage, etc).  Either they know his mind or they do not.  The reality is that whenever a tough theological question is asked the answer is “we can’t know god’s mind”; yet they can know his mind when it comes to social and political issues is nothing more than a cop-out.

The article has many more statements of a similar nature in the middle few paragraphs, all of which are as nonsensical as the above.  However, I want to move to the end of the piece.  Keller writes:

“What needs to happen at some point is a presentation of the Christian story “in a way that addresses the things that people most want for their own lives.”

 

Show how Christianity can give them what they are trying to find outside of Christianity, he summed.

 

“There is a way of telling the gospel that makes people say, ‘I don’t believe it’s true, but I wish it were,’” said Keller. “You have to get to the beauty of it, and then go back to the reasons for it.”

This is dangerous stuff here.  These are the types of statement that we must be sensitive towards.  Keller is describing the cornerstone of religious success—hook people by giving something they want then they will not care if the reasons for it are rubbish.  This is one major reason why apologetics is dishonest.  Keller is advocating for a new successful PR campaign of the Christian story.  Christianity needs to be a story that will fill the needs of people in this century, so that people become hooked on it.  We see this all of the time in our lives.  When we want to believe something really badly—for any reason, because it is easier to face than the truth or relieves us of some pain, us humans are quite adept at rationalizing and talking ourselves into things.  We all do it at times.  This is what Christianity is seeking:  Get people hooked, and they will not want to question the validity of the entire religion or care to seek answers to the tough questions.  In truth, most of my friends and family are Christian—that is exactly how they live their lives.  Religion provides them with something, they do not want to even think about its validity.

This is why Christianity, like all religions is a virus on this planet.  The only goals are preservation and propagation.  Keller, like all apologists before him will deceive the credulous to further those ends.  It is up to critical thinking and free thinking people to stand in the way.

Thanks for Reading.  I look forward to your comments.

—-RB

If you have a blog please feel free to promote it on my “Promote Your Blog” page above.

If you would like to share your story of how you became an atheist, please do that on my “Share your Atheism Story” forum.  Our stories may help to encourage others with similar feelings to know that life is more than just okay without god(s).

If you have not yet checked out Alltop.com’s Atheism Blogs….what are you waiting for?

 

 

11 thoughts on “Another Example of Christian Apologetic Deceit

  1. Alan Perlman from Keene, NH, United States

    "Apologetics" is an apt term: one must apologize, make excuses for an inconsistent, malevolent, (apparently) uncaring deity, as one might for an unruly child. This activity is unworthy of intelligent human beings…but you are right about "comfort first, reasons later (if ever)." As long as they keep spewing the BS, the advocates of reason must stand against it. It doesn't take much to blow down this house of cards, but believers keep building them. Good post!

    Reply
  2. Andrew Hunley from Atlanta, GA, United States

    To say that i believe in anything other than my self would render me helpless and hopeless. Man excuse for abuseing the helpless beings is shameful. My goal is to help one being to freedom to enjoy the universe as it is. Thinks for leting me follow you

    Reply
  3. Hausdorff from Troy, MI, United States

    No, we can't prove that we aren't in the matrix, we also can't prove that we aren't just part of a dream. These arguments are kind of fun, but I hate when people use them like this. The only purpose of it as far as I can tell is to confuse people before you try to stick your ideas into their heads.

    Reply
  4. Cephus from Redlands, CA, United States

    The whole Matrix thing is really absurd, it's a take-off on classical solipsism, which nobody buys into anyhow. While yes, it is possible, in the realm of extreme possibilities, that it's true, it isn't supported by a shred of evidence and thus, there's no reason to think that it actually is so. What's most likely is that we are exactly where we seem to be and until evidence comes up to suggest another possibility is actually true, why think that it actually is?

    The Matrix is a dodge, nothing more.

    Reply
  5. Daponite from Chicago, IL, United States

    How would you guys want the proof of things not seen with the seen?to prove that your body is made up of living cells containing unseen "things",you need a microscope.astronomically you need telescope to see stars billions of light years away…now tell me,how do you want him to prove God exist in the unseen realm with the unseen things you don"t believe in?
    The evidence of design all around us is the only option left to prove the "extra-terrestrial" is and are smarter,wiser,stronger,more intelligent,faster,etc than you.
    Give room for reasoning in your heart and follow the pattern of design of things that have remained for ages and will remain if the "cycle" is not broken.we are in a world that revolves thereby restoring,replenishing,etc itself and this can go on forever,if only we can "see".and if we continue to deprive ourselves of the unseen God and others beings He created,then we will continue to disrupt this cycle and cos our existence on earth to cease.
    Finally,every thing we need to sustain life on earth has ever been on this earth.nuclear,solar,lunar-energies and more to be discovered at the atomic level should be enough to show that man should continue to explore and develop to sustain life on earth and live for as long as we want,that is,forever!

    Reply
    1. reasonbeing from Rochester, MN, United States Post author

      Thanks for stopping by Daponite. I must disagree with your logic here. You claim that god is in some "unseen" realm and therefore cannot be proved real by any method known to us. If that is true, which I do not for a second believe, then how could you, or anyone else possibly know anything about this god…the rest of your comment becomes meaningless. You could not know any of that if you first cannot prove that this god exists. If you can't prove his existence, you certainly cannot prove you know what he says, wants, does, etc.

      Reply
  6. Hausdorff from Troy, MI, United States

    Let's look at your example of a telescope. You are correct, our sight is limited, we can extend that with a telescope, but that is also limited. Suppose we are interested in whether or not there is intelligent life on a planet surrounding our nearest star. We currently don't have a strong enough telescope to tell whether or not there is life there. You say we shouldn't conclude from this that there is no life there, I agree completely. However, suppose I claimed that there was life there. "I know there is life there, you can't see it, but I know it is there." You would not believe me (hopefully). You would want to know how I know such a thing. Suppose you kept asking me and I kept giving non-answers. "I just know", "why don't you just trust me?". You would conclude that I don't know what I am talking about. Does that mean you have to conclude that there is no life on that planet? No, it doesn't, but you can conclude that my information is suspect at best.

    Suppose further I started giving lots of details, these aliens have green skin, 8 arms with pinchers instead of hands, they are 20 feet tall. They are also very smart and have been building space ships, they are on the way here. Would you believe all of that? Again, I can give no good source of my information. I hope you would dismiss all of that unless I can explain how I know it.

    This is similar to how religious claims sound. You say that God is immaterial, you say he is unseen, I've seen others claim God is unknowable, and yet you (and they) provide a great deal of details about him. This is hard to reconcile.

    Am I claiming that God's don't exist for sure? No, not really. But until there is good reason I am sure as hell not going to believe in one.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv badge