What do you think?
Rate this book
Glauben wozu?: Religion im Zeitalter der Skepsis
Timothy Kellers neues Buch "Glauben wozu?" behandelt die große Frage nach Gott - in einer säkularen, aufgeklärten, nachchristlichen Gesellschaft. Eine Einladung zum Denken und Glauben.
Wozu brauchen wir heute noch Religion, Gott oder das Christentum? Wir leben doch in einer aufgeklärten Zeit, die Wissenschaft hat Gott längst überflüssig gemacht und die Kirchen haben ihr Vertrauen verspielt. In den Jahren nach seinem Bestseller-Erfolg "Warum Gott?" hat Timothy Keller gemerkt, dass sich viele Menschen die Fragen gar nicht mehr stellen, die er dort behandelt hat, weil Religion schlicht keine Rolle mehr in ihrem Leben spielt.
Deshalb fragt er in diesem Buch nicht "Warum Gott?" – sondern "Glauben wozu?" Hat der christliche Glaube tatsächlich tragfähige Antworten auf die großen Fragen unserer Zeit? Kann er helfen, die persönlichen Fragen nach Sinn und Bedeutung zu beantworten?
Der erste Teil behandelt die Frage, wozu wir Religion überhaupt noch brauchen in einer Kultur, die nicht mehr auf Glauben, sondern auf Wissen beruht - und in der im Namen der Religion viel Schaden angerichtet wird. Im zweiten Teil geht es um den "Mehrwert" der Religion. Kann sie Sinn, Zufriedenheit, Idtentität und Hoffnung bringen - oder ist sie nicht doch nur eine einengende Moral? Im dritten Teil stellt Keller die Frage, ob es überhaupt vernüftig ist, noch an Gott zu glauben. Muss man dann nicht seien Verstand an der Garderobe abgeben?
Timothy Keller lädt ein, die eigenen unbewiesenen Annahmen über diese Welt und sich selbst zu überdenken und den Wert des christlichen Glaubens neu zu entdecken.
Wozu brauchen wir heute noch Religion, Gott oder das Christentum? Wir leben doch in einer aufgeklärten Zeit, die Wissenschaft hat Gott längst überflüssig gemacht und die Kirchen haben ihr Vertrauen verspielt. In den Jahren nach seinem Bestseller-Erfolg "Warum Gott?" hat Timothy Keller gemerkt, dass sich viele Menschen die Fragen gar nicht mehr stellen, die er dort behandelt hat, weil Religion schlicht keine Rolle mehr in ihrem Leben spielt.
Deshalb fragt er in diesem Buch nicht "Warum Gott?" – sondern "Glauben wozu?" Hat der christliche Glaube tatsächlich tragfähige Antworten auf die großen Fragen unserer Zeit? Kann er helfen, die persönlichen Fragen nach Sinn und Bedeutung zu beantworten?
Der erste Teil behandelt die Frage, wozu wir Religion überhaupt noch brauchen in einer Kultur, die nicht mehr auf Glauben, sondern auf Wissen beruht - und in der im Namen der Religion viel Schaden angerichtet wird. Im zweiten Teil geht es um den "Mehrwert" der Religion. Kann sie Sinn, Zufriedenheit, Idtentität und Hoffnung bringen - oder ist sie nicht doch nur eine einengende Moral? Im dritten Teil stellt Keller die Frage, ob es überhaupt vernüftig ist, noch an Gott zu glauben. Muss man dann nicht seien Verstand an der Garderobe abgeben?
Timothy Keller lädt ein, die eigenen unbewiesenen Annahmen über diese Welt und sich selbst zu überdenken und den Wert des christlichen Glaubens neu zu entdecken.
410 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2016
1654 people are currently reading
8173 people want to read
About the author
Timothy J. Keller
398 books5,658 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Timothy Keller was the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, which he started in 1989 with his wife, Kathy, and three young sons. For over twenty years he has led a diverse congregation of young professionals that has grown to a weekly attendance of over 5,000.
He was also Chairman of Redeemer City to City, which starts new churches in New York and other global cities, and publishes books and resources for faith in an urban culture. In over ten years they have helped to launch over 250 churches in 48 cities. More recently, Dr. Keller’s books, including the New York Times bestselling The Reason for God and The Prodigal God, have sold over 1 million copies and been translated into 15 languages.
Christianity Today has said, “Fifty years from now, if evangelical Christians are widely known for their love of cities, their commitment to mercy and justice, and their love of their neighbors, Tim Keller will be remembered as a pioneer of the new urban Christians.”
Dr. Keller was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and educated at Bucknell University, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Westminster Theological Seminary. He previously served as the pastor of West Hopewell Presbyterian Church in Hopewell, Virginia, Associate Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, and Director of Mercy Ministries for the Presbyterian Church in America.
Timothy Keller was the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, which he started in 1989 with his wife, Kathy, and three young sons. For over twenty years he has led a diverse congregation of young professionals that has grown to a weekly attendance of over 5,000.
He was also Chairman of Redeemer City to City, which starts new churches in New York and other global cities, and publishes books and resources for faith in an urban culture. In over ten years they have helped to launch over 250 churches in 48 cities. More recently, Dr. Keller’s books, including the New York Times bestselling The Reason for God and The Prodigal God, have sold over 1 million copies and been translated into 15 languages.
Christianity Today has said, “Fifty years from now, if evangelical Christians are widely known for their love of cities, their commitment to mercy and justice, and their love of their neighbors, Tim Keller will be remembered as a pioneer of the new urban Christians.”
Dr. Keller was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and educated at Bucknell University, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Westminster Theological Seminary. He previously served as the pastor of West Hopewell Presbyterian Church in Hopewell, Virginia, Associate Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, and Director of Mercy Ministries for the Presbyterian Church in America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 574 reviews
June 1, 2017
I've joked for a long time with my believing friends that if anyone could bring me back to Christian faith, it'd be Tim Keller. While I still believed, no one did more to shape my worldview or open me up to further theological, cultural or philosophical exploration than he did. With this book—alongside some other extenuating experiences and realizations I've been having lately—I think I've truly regained some semblance of the faith I once had. Caveat: it's far more cautious, questioning and uncertain than it ever was before I lost it, but it's enough for me to cast my lot in with Fyodor Dostoevsky and Soren Kierkegaard rather than Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. This is the sort of book I wish more Christians passed on to their skeptical friends: its author is humble, wise, aware, well-studied and read, persuasive, erudite and invitational. It's an impressive work even if you don't find it an ultimately convincing one.
There are two main reasons I think it's worthwhile to read this book, no matter where you're at in terms of belief. One, it exposes how our belief systems—whether postmodern hodgepodges, Enlightenment/New Atheist secularism, traditionally religious, etc—cater in part to our emotional, existential and social needs as much as to our rational capabilities. Thus, we should be wary and skeptical of any claims to absolute truth, not just religion's. Two, it does this without succumbing to dogmatic faux pas or ideological arrogance—there aren't many straw men here, nor is there even an assertion that Christianity is an airtight and unassailable logical system. Instead, Keller does an excellent job showing how faith makes enough logical sense to not be discounted outright and that it makes exponentially more sense on an fundamentally existential level than the assertions of naturalistic secularism.
For those reasons, I leave this book humbly leaping with a slightly embarrassing, still confused faith in this Jesus I find so utterly admirable that I should've realized long ago I'd never be able to outrun him.
There are two main reasons I think it's worthwhile to read this book, no matter where you're at in terms of belief. One, it exposes how our belief systems—whether postmodern hodgepodges, Enlightenment/New Atheist secularism, traditionally religious, etc—cater in part to our emotional, existential and social needs as much as to our rational capabilities. Thus, we should be wary and skeptical of any claims to absolute truth, not just religion's. Two, it does this without succumbing to dogmatic faux pas or ideological arrogance—there aren't many straw men here, nor is there even an assertion that Christianity is an airtight and unassailable logical system. Instead, Keller does an excellent job showing how faith makes enough logical sense to not be discounted outright and that it makes exponentially more sense on an fundamentally existential level than the assertions of naturalistic secularism.
For those reasons, I leave this book humbly leaping with a slightly embarrassing, still confused faith in this Jesus I find so utterly admirable that I should've realized long ago I'd never be able to outrun him.
October 13, 2016
I’m not big on reformed theology. I’m not big on apologetics, either. Still, I really like Tim Keller. I don’t agree with everything he says, but there is much to learn from this seasoned pastor and author.
Making Sense of God is an apologetic (hence the subtitle An Invitation to the Skeptical). Like I said, I’m not big on apologetics, but Keller’s approach is very generous and – like his other books – a pleasure to read. Whatever else one can argue about Keller, he’s a fantastic writer.
As to the actual content of this work I have three review comments. First, Keller is well researched. Sixty-eight pages of endnotes points to this fact. He references great scholars, lays out his material in a very clear and concise manner (again, great writing), and engages many current issues in a way that is easy to read.
Second, this book is not necessarily for every skeptic. I’ve read some who critiqued Keller’s The Reason For God for being overly simplistic in it’s content. The irony is that I know other people who thought it was a very difficult read. I believe that we can look at the different reactions and conclude that Keller is writing for a relatively specific audience. I would categorize that audience as being well to very well educated, but not necessarily highly educated in the specific field he is writing about. In other words, they might be doctors or lawyers, but probably not philosophers. This is not a dissertation or an attempt to make a mark in the philosophical world but is rather a work geared towards those who are well educated but have taken much of their worldview for granted. When I said earlier that his apologetic is generous, I mean that it is pastoral. He is not (thank God) like the in-your-face want-to-be apologists that post videos on Facebook. He’s a New York city pastor who is dealing, conversationally, with issues that matter to people (or the sub-issues which they haven’t yet thought through). In my opinion, he does this really well.
Third, if you are familiar with Keller’s previous work you will recognize a lot of the material in this book. This is not to say that this book is simply a rehash of previous books, but there are traces of it there. This isn’t necessarily negative, though, since all of the thoughts fit well in the overall structure, but it’s noticeable.
Overall I enjoyed this book and am grateful for Keller’s wise pastoral voice in our day.
*I review many books at www.philaud.com
Making Sense of God is an apologetic (hence the subtitle An Invitation to the Skeptical). Like I said, I’m not big on apologetics, but Keller’s approach is very generous and – like his other books – a pleasure to read. Whatever else one can argue about Keller, he’s a fantastic writer.
As to the actual content of this work I have three review comments. First, Keller is well researched. Sixty-eight pages of endnotes points to this fact. He references great scholars, lays out his material in a very clear and concise manner (again, great writing), and engages many current issues in a way that is easy to read.
Second, this book is not necessarily for every skeptic. I’ve read some who critiqued Keller’s The Reason For God for being overly simplistic in it’s content. The irony is that I know other people who thought it was a very difficult read. I believe that we can look at the different reactions and conclude that Keller is writing for a relatively specific audience. I would categorize that audience as being well to very well educated, but not necessarily highly educated in the specific field he is writing about. In other words, they might be doctors or lawyers, but probably not philosophers. This is not a dissertation or an attempt to make a mark in the philosophical world but is rather a work geared towards those who are well educated but have taken much of their worldview for granted. When I said earlier that his apologetic is generous, I mean that it is pastoral. He is not (thank God) like the in-your-face want-to-be apologists that post videos on Facebook. He’s a New York city pastor who is dealing, conversationally, with issues that matter to people (or the sub-issues which they haven’t yet thought through). In my opinion, he does this really well.
Third, if you are familiar with Keller’s previous work you will recognize a lot of the material in this book. This is not to say that this book is simply a rehash of previous books, but there are traces of it there. This isn’t necessarily negative, though, since all of the thoughts fit well in the overall structure, but it’s noticeable.
Overall I enjoyed this book and am grateful for Keller’s wise pastoral voice in our day.
*I review many books at www.philaud.com
December 26, 2018
When I first heard people calling Keller the heir to Lewis, back when his Reason for God came out in 2008, I was skeptical. How could anyone ever match Lewis? But I have taken Keller's invitation, and I am skeptical no longer. Keller is the heir to Lewis. He knows how to speak to modern unbelievers with winsome logic. This book is excellent, blending deference and boldness in appropriate amounts. And its basic arguments I find both clear and, as I was predisposed to do, persuasive. If Keller's views on evolution are not the same as mine, I nonetheless note that (unless I missed something) this does not matter for the purposes of this book. His target was materialism, and we unite in opposition to it. Here is a presuppositionalist in the Westminster train who actually bothers to talk to educated unbelievers all the time. He is on the frontlines of this aspect of evangelism, and he has much to teach us. I personally do not run into many people like those Keller targets, but when I do I know of no better approach than his to start with. Every evangelistic encounter is different, because every person is, but this book will help Christian readers know how to parry secularist objections—and it will help secularist objectors realize that being in the cultural majority doesn't make all one's arguments cogent.
Read
March 21, 2020Livro maravilhoso para quem quer aprender a defender sua fé, e também para dar de presente para aquela pessoa que tem críticas infundadas sobre o cristianismo. Tim Keller ganhou meu coração (mais ainda) nesse livro por citar Viktor Frankl.
November 3, 2020
I think this is much better than The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. There are still some holes in Keller's arguments here, but overall it's a much better-written book.
The topics he covers include:
--Is religion growing or dying out in the world?
--The false dichotomy of faith vs. reason
--The meaning behind suffering (the problem of pain)
--Satisfaction and happiness in life
--Following "your truth" and postmodernism's rejection of meta-narratives
--Subjective vs. objective morality
--Finding one's identity in material vs. spiritual things
--Mankind's inclination toward selfishness and need for hope
--The use of religion to inflict oppression
As you can see, he covers mostly epistemology and apologetics. There is a short chapter toward the end about Jesus and the reliability of the gospel accounts; I think he tried to tackle too much there. But one could say it's nice for atheists to get just a taste of the standard arguments for Jesus and the biblical texts, simply as a springboard.
Throughout this work, Keller basically echoes the arguments from Mere Christianity and The Case for Christ. There's also a bit of I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist here. So there's nothing new or mind-blowing. Instead, the book's appeal is in its packaging and accessibility -- Keller does a good job of summarizing the arguments for Christianity in an easily-digestible, intellectually honest way, with a focus on the wider scope of Christianity's place in the world. He starts from the outside in, asking questions an atheist would ask, yet still ends every chapter with the gospel. He manages to present a strong case, while still leaving room for the reader to breathe and not shoving it down his throat. By the end of the book, you can tell he simply wanted to make the reader think honestly about Christianity, not to make the reader believe in Christianity. That's refreshing in apologetics.
See Keller give a short talk on this book here:
https://youtu.be/4uIvOniW8xA?t=20
Quotes:
"If you are being swept up in joy and wonder by a work of art, it will impoverish you to remind yourself that this feeling is simply a chemical reaction that helped your ancestors find food and escape predators, and nothing more. You will need to shield yourself, then, from your own secular view of things in order to get the most out of the experience."
The topics he covers include:
--Is religion growing or dying out in the world?
--The false dichotomy of faith vs. reason
--The meaning behind suffering (the problem of pain)
--Satisfaction and happiness in life
--Following "your truth" and postmodernism's rejection of meta-narratives
--Subjective vs. objective morality
--Finding one's identity in material vs. spiritual things
--Mankind's inclination toward selfishness and need for hope
--The use of religion to inflict oppression
As you can see, he covers mostly epistemology and apologetics. There is a short chapter toward the end about Jesus and the reliability of the gospel accounts; I think he tried to tackle too much there. But one could say it's nice for atheists to get just a taste of the standard arguments for Jesus and the biblical texts, simply as a springboard.
Throughout this work, Keller basically echoes the arguments from Mere Christianity and The Case for Christ. There's also a bit of I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist here. So there's nothing new or mind-blowing. Instead, the book's appeal is in its packaging and accessibility -- Keller does a good job of summarizing the arguments for Christianity in an easily-digestible, intellectually honest way, with a focus on the wider scope of Christianity's place in the world. He starts from the outside in, asking questions an atheist would ask, yet still ends every chapter with the gospel. He manages to present a strong case, while still leaving room for the reader to breathe and not shoving it down his throat. By the end of the book, you can tell he simply wanted to make the reader think honestly about Christianity, not to make the reader believe in Christianity. That's refreshing in apologetics.
See Keller give a short talk on this book here:
https://youtu.be/4uIvOniW8xA?t=20
Quotes:
"If you are being swept up in joy and wonder by a work of art, it will impoverish you to remind yourself that this feeling is simply a chemical reaction that helped your ancestors find food and escape predators, and nothing more. You will need to shield yourself, then, from your own secular view of things in order to get the most out of the experience."
October 1, 2022
Keller setzt sich in seinem Buch mit zwei Unterkategorien des (post-)modernen Säkularismus auseinander, Materialismus und Empirismus, teilweise, gerade in Moralphilosophischen Fragen auch mit humanistischen Entwürfen und zeigt deren unzureichende Angebote und Überlegungen auf der einen Seite und die Ressourcen, die christlicher Glaube bietet, auf der anderen Seite auf.
Sicherlich wäre eine genauere und tiefere Auseinandersetzung mit nihilistischen Entwürfen auch spannend und weiterbringend gewesen. Zudem ist das Buch an manchen Stellen schon sehr stark theologisch geschrieben und löst sich von dem zu Beginn der einzelnen Unterkapitel sehr zahlreichen Verweisen verschiedenster Disziplinen und explizit auch sehr vieler atheistischer Denker und Autoren.
Nichtsdestotrotz sehr empfehlenswert, gerade als Einstieg für die Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Entwürfen, dabei allerdings zudem sehr persönlich und auch auf emotionaler Ebene ansprechend geschrieben.
Sicherlich wäre eine genauere und tiefere Auseinandersetzung mit nihilistischen Entwürfen auch spannend und weiterbringend gewesen. Zudem ist das Buch an manchen Stellen schon sehr stark theologisch geschrieben und löst sich von dem zu Beginn der einzelnen Unterkapitel sehr zahlreichen Verweisen verschiedenster Disziplinen und explizit auch sehr vieler atheistischer Denker und Autoren.
Nichtsdestotrotz sehr empfehlenswert, gerade als Einstieg für die Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Entwürfen, dabei allerdings zudem sehr persönlich und auch auf emotionaler Ebene ansprechend geschrieben.
February 5, 2017
I think Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical is Keller's best work yet. He has gone on record stating that Making Sense of God is a sort of prequel to his best selling The Reason for God. The reason he gives for such a prequel is that he felt the need to offer a well-reasoned position as to why people might (or could) be motivated to consider a reasoning for God in the first place. In other words, why should we care about bringing the question of God into the picture in the first place?
Peaceful and Methodical
I found the book very methodical in its approach and his arguments well layed out. It feels quite the opposite to some of the older style apologetics, which at times tend towards a penchant for creating strawman arguments. Keller is not at war, nor is he wanting to create a war. His motivation is to open the door for peaceful and helpful dialogue, and so he is careful not to dismiss or belittle any of the arguments he confronts. He simply wants to shed light on the struggle that exists between belief and unbelief.
It is worth noting that he does speak, at least partially, from a laymans position. That is to say, his depth of experience with the questions he pursues in the book are centred on his experience with being a Pastor to many who have taken this journey either towards or away from faith, and faced these struggles themselves. I find him to be very good at navigating this middle ground, between his obviously well-researched position on religious and philosophical grounds (the depth he brings to the endnotes and references is worth the price of the book alone) and his understanding of the personal struggle that can (and does) exist for many of us in the everyday commonness of trying to do this thing called life. This is where he finds his sweet spot.
The Skeptical and the Nones: Making Sense of the Target Audience
It is a book that has been suggested as being marketed to the skeptical (as warranted by the title). I might take this a step further and suggest that his true market is the so-called "nones", to which he references in the book as those who claim no affiliation with a denomination and/or religion, nor a strong affiliation with stringent forms of atheism. I would wager that strident atheists and believers (who have made up their mind on either side of the fence) might not appreciate the book or might otherwise abuse/misunderstand the ideas he represents. This would be unfortunate, but it would also be expected. It wouldn't surprise me that some might dismiss his arguments as already "tried and found wanting" without much need for further consideration. The truth is, Keller doesn't fit perfectly into either mode. Being a (unapologetic) professing Christian who takes equal aim at abusive forms of conservatism and dishonest forms of atheism does limit the scope of his audience. But hopefully the audience that he does manage to captivate can be more adept at bringing both reason and experience, thought and faith into a more well-balanced discussion of the religious motivation (both for and against).
Classic Keller with a Twist
Keller's interest in writing Making Sense of God should be nothing new (for those familiar with his previous work and his sermons), but the concise way that he brings together his thoughts allows this to feel fresh, and his commentary on the current state on the Church feels important and relevant. He meanders through much of the secular humanist/materialist/atheist reasoning in an attempt not to show them as moral denigrates or dangerous monsters (quite the opposite in-fact), but rather to show the limits of their reasoning in the realm of honest philosophical consideration. To admit the limits of secular humanist reasoning, for Keller, is a place that every good and honest thinker must start, whether one is religiously inclined or not, when making sense of God. For as much as religion must face its own limitations (and accept that it has its own set of problems), so does atheism, and a thorough examining of history can prove this continues to be the case. Perhaps admitting these limitations can help us understand that these two ideologies (or worldviews) should not be at war. Rather, they should want to be in constant dialogue.
Keller goes on in his early chapters to consider a shocking analysis of the religious front. Contrary to the view of popular culture, Keller insists that the data and the evidence shows religion is not waning or dying out, but simply reorienting itself within certain dying factions, while other factions are actually gaining in strength. The great fallacy of our time, or the great misunderstanding of religion, begins with the false idea that there are no intellectually honest, rationally concerned and yet still religiously committed forms of the Christian Church and practice available. That the entirety of Christianity (and atheism for that matter) has been placed under a single, unfortunate stereotype is a part of the problem on both sides of the fence. Keller doesn't say as much, but certainly his work at Redeemer is an example of a decidedly different kind of Church, one that happens to be flourishing without the aid of popular technique or flashy stages, and one that is encouraging a new kind of urban witness and style of conversation for our modern landscape, one that is not afraid to embrace the Christian traditions or the questions at the same time.
The Problem of Created Meaning
My favorite chapters are the earlier ones that deal with meaning, satisfaction, and happiness. It is the journey that I have been on lately, and it is where I think Keller shines the brightest. His chapters on morality and hope are also very good, but they are decidedly more complex as well and depend on the foundation that is established in the earlier chapters.
Where I think the subject of happiness and satisfaction and meaning hit home (for me) is the way in which they force us to be completely honest with the "why" questions. Why do we need to consider God? Why should we care about altruism and human worth? Why should we embrace the idea of sacrificial living? Keller helps us to see that secular humanism makes a ton of assumptions when it comes to the many why questions, most of which surround morality and meaning, assumptions that, when laid bare, it ultimately cannot fully answer (something the most prominent humanist thinkers admit, as Keller shows). This is where the earlier chapters help give shape to the larger discussion of why God, showing how all of the "whys" flow out of the following notion: how do we honestly live (and sell, since living is essentially a relating activity) a worldview that must learn to accept that it is living (for better or for worse) a lie. Not a lie in the misleading sense, but "lie" as in a contradiction of thought and practice.
For example (to flesh this out with a bit more clarity), secular humanism accepts what most people intuitively know, which is that emotions such as love and experiences such as admiring beauty are real emotions and real experiences that have inherent meaning outside of ourselves. They are recognized as universal truths. However, the worldview it imposes onto these universal truths must also accept that any meaning attributed to these emotions and experiences is created (a product of chemical reactions determined by the environment in which we live and governed by the process of history and evolution) not given. These emotions and experiences are essentially reactions that trick us into feeling one way or another. Thus, the only way for us to genuinely give ourselves to these emotions and experiences (in a way that matters) is for us to willingly (or naively) ignore the truth of created meaning (a truth that can be manipulated) while subsequently allowing ourselves to submit to the delusion that this truth carries given (universal) meaning.
Keller maintains that most of us would accept that, if love (in the moment of the emotion) is processed purely on the basis of what it actually is (in this worldview), the idea of love would necessarily be cheapened; nothing more than a pleasurable and (sometimes) helpful experience that we can either give ourselves to or become cynical towards. Rather, for something like love to become meaningful, we must be able to accept it as meaningful, long before the meaning is actually created. Thus the contradiction of thought and practice.
The word "lie" here sounds rather forceful (and this might be the place where strident atheists check out of the conversation), but Keller's careful methodology forces us to face it head on. After sifting through all of the complex (and rather good) philosophical considerations for secular-humanism, we consistently arrive back at the same place. The best we can do is suggest that "we should care simply because it is something we should care about".
But why? Is it that we should care because our environment and evolutionary development has positioned our consciousness to care, and that should be enough? But how do we deal with the truth that history shows us enslaved to the evolutionary process, not the other way around, and thus we must consider an evolutionary process that is contradictory to the claims of our social consciousness? Sure, we can consider that our social consciousness is a unique part of our "human evolution", and thus must be considered as a unique faction of the evolutionary chain, but even within the framework of human evolution the path is far from linear and purely "progressive".
Once we consider that all of our conscious emotions (which form the basis of caring and meaning) are simply created forms of created meaning, it should follow that we would be forced to consider ideas (or experiences) such as love and compassion, for as intuitive as they are, as without meaning (or meaningless) outside of their practical context. We can choose to give it meaning, but then we are ignoring the greater truth (of science and reason within a secular humanist worldview), which is that this meaning must be manufactured from outside of the environment that actually created the feeling or the experience, an environment that is not concerned with altruism (selflessness) but rather survival and adaptation (selfishness).
The Common angst of the Spiritual Journey: Why created "meaning" can't work for me.
The reason I appreciated this part of the book is because it reflects, rather accurately, my own journey through secular-humanism and atheism. At one point in my life I figured I had found the truth (of intellectual reasoning) and the truth had set me free. But what I lost in the process was the motivation to care. Everywhere I looked I found false expressions of the essential human experience that most of us intuitively embrace (love, self-giving, sacrificial), an experience, if I was truly honest, I was even able to manipulate and control if I wanted. This realization filtered all the way down to the most troublesome notion for me- experiencing and recognizing the fallacy of the way in which we process human loss by breathing meaning into our relationships where it otherwise wold not be a given. This is what the truth tends to do, though, is make us confront the futility of this world in which we are far from the centre of the universe. If I am not able to operate from the religious premise of endowed human worth (which is an exercise of faith), I was forced to face the truth that whoever speaks this worth into my context of my own funeral must do so by reconstructing the picture my life in a way that ignores the truth of what it was. Because God knows that if someone honestly portrayed my life for what it was (or has been... I'm still alive after all) rather than what an endowed sense of meaning allows me (and others) to say it is, it would cause most to leave the funeral disgusted, defeated and discouraged.
And yet, I suspect that the story of my own funeral will be the same as every funeral I have ever attended, which is a celebration of my worth and goodness as an individual and a vision of my life set in some form of a positive light. I'll be honest, this was a small token of assurance during my experimentation with a secular-humanist approach, because God (irony intended) also knows that my name (along with most people) will fade into the nothingness of history less than a generation or so after I pass. But the greatest loss I faced at this time in my life was that, if I was not able to accept this meaning for myself, I could not, at least not honestly, give meaning to others either.
The Emotional Struggle
Keller gets the emotional core of this struggle spot-on, and really narrows in on the questions that tend to cause people in my position so much angst and turmoil. The idea that we are living a lie, and the idea that I must also lie to myself on a daily basis in order to live it with any sense of truth and conviction, is a very defeatist position to find yourself in. I know that there are many atheists who choose not to submit to this defeat, and their witness (as people who live a good life, who are happy, and who manage to make something out of this created worth) might be the strongest argument against the need for God. After all, if the idea of God is not true, this exercise simply becomes the reality of the life we are forced to live, and we might as well try to make it as happy an exercise as we can. But it doesn't make this approach any more true or honest or rational than the faith positions of the religious. And further, it has little to say to those who don't fall on the winning side of this lottery we call life, the ones who are not afforded the material comforts and joys of the so-called elite nor the social support that can help ease life's emotional and physical burdens.
For myself, I couldn't get past the fact that I must learn to live a delusion in order to find meaning in life beyond the material, and I didn't have much that could satisfy my feeling of defeat that this reality led me towards.
Making sense of God in my own life was a way of reconciling this tension. It reoriented my tendency to see faith as the "delusion" and secularism as the truth. It allowed me to consider that both God/religion and secular humanism demanded equal acts of "faith", a cliche (I know, because I dismissed this cliche myself for many years), but nevertheless a truth, one that that helped free me from the prison of intellectual elitism.
Spreading Himself too thin
This might be a small criticism, but Keller might have been better off simply addressing the limitations of the secular-humanist approach rather than stretching some of the material to0 thin (which I believe he does) with the smaller portions that deal more with apologetics "for" the Christian faith rather than for the "consideration" of God in general. The format he carries through the book, before leaving room for a brief look at the Christian story in the final chapters, is to examine the different parts of the secular-humanist/materialist/atheist positions, outline what he perceives as their limitations, and then conclude with his (brief) consideration for the helpfulness of the Christian approach in dealing with some of these limitations. In this sense, while the true interest of the book is in setting the groundwork for considering religious belief, he submits himself to the religion which he knows best- Christianity; thus furthering the books interest in the particulars of the Christian faith in response. This is actually the interest of The Reason For God, and I think he would have been better served to simply leave Making Sense of God as an argument for religious consideration in general while allowing his previous book to push this further.
Although all of what he says has relevance and importance, it does feel slightly premature to his end goal of engaging the heart and mind of the skeptic in a sort of middle-ground. For many skeptics (I can imagine), the Christian theology might arrive with the baggage of what turned them away from considering religion to begin with, which means it could become an obstacle to Keller's greater hope and concern- which is to encourage readers to be "willing" to consider a religious direction and concern.
With that said, I would definitely still consider this one of Keller's best books. It won't be for everyone, but I think, for a certain crowd, he provides something incredibly reasoned and hopeful, especially for those who have ever felt lost in the middle ground between faith and the secular.
Peaceful and Methodical
I found the book very methodical in its approach and his arguments well layed out. It feels quite the opposite to some of the older style apologetics, which at times tend towards a penchant for creating strawman arguments. Keller is not at war, nor is he wanting to create a war. His motivation is to open the door for peaceful and helpful dialogue, and so he is careful not to dismiss or belittle any of the arguments he confronts. He simply wants to shed light on the struggle that exists between belief and unbelief.
It is worth noting that he does speak, at least partially, from a laymans position. That is to say, his depth of experience with the questions he pursues in the book are centred on his experience with being a Pastor to many who have taken this journey either towards or away from faith, and faced these struggles themselves. I find him to be very good at navigating this middle ground, between his obviously well-researched position on religious and philosophical grounds (the depth he brings to the endnotes and references is worth the price of the book alone) and his understanding of the personal struggle that can (and does) exist for many of us in the everyday commonness of trying to do this thing called life. This is where he finds his sweet spot.
The Skeptical and the Nones: Making Sense of the Target Audience
It is a book that has been suggested as being marketed to the skeptical (as warranted by the title). I might take this a step further and suggest that his true market is the so-called "nones", to which he references in the book as those who claim no affiliation with a denomination and/or religion, nor a strong affiliation with stringent forms of atheism. I would wager that strident atheists and believers (who have made up their mind on either side of the fence) might not appreciate the book or might otherwise abuse/misunderstand the ideas he represents. This would be unfortunate, but it would also be expected. It wouldn't surprise me that some might dismiss his arguments as already "tried and found wanting" without much need for further consideration. The truth is, Keller doesn't fit perfectly into either mode. Being a (unapologetic) professing Christian who takes equal aim at abusive forms of conservatism and dishonest forms of atheism does limit the scope of his audience. But hopefully the audience that he does manage to captivate can be more adept at bringing both reason and experience, thought and faith into a more well-balanced discussion of the religious motivation (both for and against).
Classic Keller with a Twist
Keller's interest in writing Making Sense of God should be nothing new (for those familiar with his previous work and his sermons), but the concise way that he brings together his thoughts allows this to feel fresh, and his commentary on the current state on the Church feels important and relevant. He meanders through much of the secular humanist/materialist/atheist reasoning in an attempt not to show them as moral denigrates or dangerous monsters (quite the opposite in-fact), but rather to show the limits of their reasoning in the realm of honest philosophical consideration. To admit the limits of secular humanist reasoning, for Keller, is a place that every good and honest thinker must start, whether one is religiously inclined or not, when making sense of God. For as much as religion must face its own limitations (and accept that it has its own set of problems), so does atheism, and a thorough examining of history can prove this continues to be the case. Perhaps admitting these limitations can help us understand that these two ideologies (or worldviews) should not be at war. Rather, they should want to be in constant dialogue.
Keller goes on in his early chapters to consider a shocking analysis of the religious front. Contrary to the view of popular culture, Keller insists that the data and the evidence shows religion is not waning or dying out, but simply reorienting itself within certain dying factions, while other factions are actually gaining in strength. The great fallacy of our time, or the great misunderstanding of religion, begins with the false idea that there are no intellectually honest, rationally concerned and yet still religiously committed forms of the Christian Church and practice available. That the entirety of Christianity (and atheism for that matter) has been placed under a single, unfortunate stereotype is a part of the problem on both sides of the fence. Keller doesn't say as much, but certainly his work at Redeemer is an example of a decidedly different kind of Church, one that happens to be flourishing without the aid of popular technique or flashy stages, and one that is encouraging a new kind of urban witness and style of conversation for our modern landscape, one that is not afraid to embrace the Christian traditions or the questions at the same time.
The Problem of Created Meaning
My favorite chapters are the earlier ones that deal with meaning, satisfaction, and happiness. It is the journey that I have been on lately, and it is where I think Keller shines the brightest. His chapters on morality and hope are also very good, but they are decidedly more complex as well and depend on the foundation that is established in the earlier chapters.
Where I think the subject of happiness and satisfaction and meaning hit home (for me) is the way in which they force us to be completely honest with the "why" questions. Why do we need to consider God? Why should we care about altruism and human worth? Why should we embrace the idea of sacrificial living? Keller helps us to see that secular humanism makes a ton of assumptions when it comes to the many why questions, most of which surround morality and meaning, assumptions that, when laid bare, it ultimately cannot fully answer (something the most prominent humanist thinkers admit, as Keller shows). This is where the earlier chapters help give shape to the larger discussion of why God, showing how all of the "whys" flow out of the following notion: how do we honestly live (and sell, since living is essentially a relating activity) a worldview that must learn to accept that it is living (for better or for worse) a lie. Not a lie in the misleading sense, but "lie" as in a contradiction of thought and practice.
For example (to flesh this out with a bit more clarity), secular humanism accepts what most people intuitively know, which is that emotions such as love and experiences such as admiring beauty are real emotions and real experiences that have inherent meaning outside of ourselves. They are recognized as universal truths. However, the worldview it imposes onto these universal truths must also accept that any meaning attributed to these emotions and experiences is created (a product of chemical reactions determined by the environment in which we live and governed by the process of history and evolution) not given. These emotions and experiences are essentially reactions that trick us into feeling one way or another. Thus, the only way for us to genuinely give ourselves to these emotions and experiences (in a way that matters) is for us to willingly (or naively) ignore the truth of created meaning (a truth that can be manipulated) while subsequently allowing ourselves to submit to the delusion that this truth carries given (universal) meaning.
Keller maintains that most of us would accept that, if love (in the moment of the emotion) is processed purely on the basis of what it actually is (in this worldview), the idea of love would necessarily be cheapened; nothing more than a pleasurable and (sometimes) helpful experience that we can either give ourselves to or become cynical towards. Rather, for something like love to become meaningful, we must be able to accept it as meaningful, long before the meaning is actually created. Thus the contradiction of thought and practice.
The word "lie" here sounds rather forceful (and this might be the place where strident atheists check out of the conversation), but Keller's careful methodology forces us to face it head on. After sifting through all of the complex (and rather good) philosophical considerations for secular-humanism, we consistently arrive back at the same place. The best we can do is suggest that "we should care simply because it is something we should care about".
But why? Is it that we should care because our environment and evolutionary development has positioned our consciousness to care, and that should be enough? But how do we deal with the truth that history shows us enslaved to the evolutionary process, not the other way around, and thus we must consider an evolutionary process that is contradictory to the claims of our social consciousness? Sure, we can consider that our social consciousness is a unique part of our "human evolution", and thus must be considered as a unique faction of the evolutionary chain, but even within the framework of human evolution the path is far from linear and purely "progressive".
Once we consider that all of our conscious emotions (which form the basis of caring and meaning) are simply created forms of created meaning, it should follow that we would be forced to consider ideas (or experiences) such as love and compassion, for as intuitive as they are, as without meaning (or meaningless) outside of their practical context. We can choose to give it meaning, but then we are ignoring the greater truth (of science and reason within a secular humanist worldview), which is that this meaning must be manufactured from outside of the environment that actually created the feeling or the experience, an environment that is not concerned with altruism (selflessness) but rather survival and adaptation (selfishness).
The Common angst of the Spiritual Journey: Why created "meaning" can't work for me.
The reason I appreciated this part of the book is because it reflects, rather accurately, my own journey through secular-humanism and atheism. At one point in my life I figured I had found the truth (of intellectual reasoning) and the truth had set me free. But what I lost in the process was the motivation to care. Everywhere I looked I found false expressions of the essential human experience that most of us intuitively embrace (love, self-giving, sacrificial), an experience, if I was truly honest, I was even able to manipulate and control if I wanted. This realization filtered all the way down to the most troublesome notion for me- experiencing and recognizing the fallacy of the way in which we process human loss by breathing meaning into our relationships where it otherwise wold not be a given. This is what the truth tends to do, though, is make us confront the futility of this world in which we are far from the centre of the universe. If I am not able to operate from the religious premise of endowed human worth (which is an exercise of faith), I was forced to face the truth that whoever speaks this worth into my context of my own funeral must do so by reconstructing the picture my life in a way that ignores the truth of what it was. Because God knows that if someone honestly portrayed my life for what it was (or has been... I'm still alive after all) rather than what an endowed sense of meaning allows me (and others) to say it is, it would cause most to leave the funeral disgusted, defeated and discouraged.
And yet, I suspect that the story of my own funeral will be the same as every funeral I have ever attended, which is a celebration of my worth and goodness as an individual and a vision of my life set in some form of a positive light. I'll be honest, this was a small token of assurance during my experimentation with a secular-humanist approach, because God (irony intended) also knows that my name (along with most people) will fade into the nothingness of history less than a generation or so after I pass. But the greatest loss I faced at this time in my life was that, if I was not able to accept this meaning for myself, I could not, at least not honestly, give meaning to others either.
The Emotional Struggle
Keller gets the emotional core of this struggle spot-on, and really narrows in on the questions that tend to cause people in my position so much angst and turmoil. The idea that we are living a lie, and the idea that I must also lie to myself on a daily basis in order to live it with any sense of truth and conviction, is a very defeatist position to find yourself in. I know that there are many atheists who choose not to submit to this defeat, and their witness (as people who live a good life, who are happy, and who manage to make something out of this created worth) might be the strongest argument against the need for God. After all, if the idea of God is not true, this exercise simply becomes the reality of the life we are forced to live, and we might as well try to make it as happy an exercise as we can. But it doesn't make this approach any more true or honest or rational than the faith positions of the religious. And further, it has little to say to those who don't fall on the winning side of this lottery we call life, the ones who are not afforded the material comforts and joys of the so-called elite nor the social support that can help ease life's emotional and physical burdens.
For myself, I couldn't get past the fact that I must learn to live a delusion in order to find meaning in life beyond the material, and I didn't have much that could satisfy my feeling of defeat that this reality led me towards.
Making sense of God in my own life was a way of reconciling this tension. It reoriented my tendency to see faith as the "delusion" and secularism as the truth. It allowed me to consider that both God/religion and secular humanism demanded equal acts of "faith", a cliche (I know, because I dismissed this cliche myself for many years), but nevertheless a truth, one that that helped free me from the prison of intellectual elitism.
Spreading Himself too thin
This might be a small criticism, but Keller might have been better off simply addressing the limitations of the secular-humanist approach rather than stretching some of the material to0 thin (which I believe he does) with the smaller portions that deal more with apologetics "for" the Christian faith rather than for the "consideration" of God in general. The format he carries through the book, before leaving room for a brief look at the Christian story in the final chapters, is to examine the different parts of the secular-humanist/materialist/atheist positions, outline what he perceives as their limitations, and then conclude with his (brief) consideration for the helpfulness of the Christian approach in dealing with some of these limitations. In this sense, while the true interest of the book is in setting the groundwork for considering religious belief, he submits himself to the religion which he knows best- Christianity; thus furthering the books interest in the particulars of the Christian faith in response. This is actually the interest of The Reason For God, and I think he would have been better served to simply leave Making Sense of God as an argument for religious consideration in general while allowing his previous book to push this further.
Although all of what he says has relevance and importance, it does feel slightly premature to his end goal of engaging the heart and mind of the skeptic in a sort of middle-ground. For many skeptics (I can imagine), the Christian theology might arrive with the baggage of what turned them away from considering religion to begin with, which means it could become an obstacle to Keller's greater hope and concern- which is to encourage readers to be "willing" to consider a religious direction and concern.
With that said, I would definitely still consider this one of Keller's best books. It won't be for everyone, but I think, for a certain crowd, he provides something incredibly reasoned and hopeful, especially for those who have ever felt lost in the middle ground between faith and the secular.
March 12, 2025
I picked this book up at the library because Hezekiah was ransacking the shelves and I needed to pick fast. I got it because it was by Timothy Keller but then when I got home and read the intro I was hesitant to start it as it was going to be a case for Christianity. However I’m really glad I read it!! It actually reminded me of Live No Lies by John Mark Comer in the sense that it took common beliefs in our culture today and questioned them. He made several arguments that the mindset of culture today (things like we have to use science to prove everything and the idea of “your truth”) and pointed out the inconsistencies and logical issues with them. His whole point was saying to believe in God is a leap of faith but to believe in what culture is trying to tell us is potentially an even greater leap of faith when you consider the facts behind the beliefs. Overall an encouragement to stand firm in what I already believe when the news and social media are trying to sell different things and just because “everyone” believes it or it’s been said over and over doesn’t make them true.
December 13, 2018
Well this was a disappointment. Between a good friend buying me it as a present and the rave reviews from people, not just devout Christians, I was fully expecting for this to be a book I could finally add to my “I disagreed but I respected him”. Judging by the score I’ve given it, I’m sure you can tell that this wasn’t the case.
The thing is, the book starts out ok which is what makes the degeneration of its quality hurt all the more. It starts by telling you that people being of different faiths, and even different levels of devotion, doesn’t mean that we can’t all get along. I love this message as Theology is just one aspect of our lives and there is very little to be gained by dismissing someone on the basis of their faith. I will also commend the book for not outright antagonising Atheists. Though I have major issues with the author and his intellectual dishonesty, I am happy to report that he doesn’t say that I am stupid for not believing.
Very early on in the book, the author makes it very clear that he understands that a lot of Atheists will present arguments regarding the burden of proof, and that as the Christian makes the positive claim they are responsible to prove it. He quickly advises that he will not be tackling these arguments or attempt to refute logical assertions: he is far more focused on the natures of Philosophy and Morality. But fine, maybe this is someone who is going to say that faith is entirely about what you can feel and not taking things literally. Russell’s Tea Pot? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The arguments that Atheists have been submitting for a long time to point out the issues of proving God go untouched in this book. I understand that one of the aspects of God is to have faith in him and not need the proof. This author’s attitude is that proof of God is irrelevant so they have no reason to provide the proof. If you want to convert sceptics to your cause you have to start by looking at how they view the world and appealing to that.
Pascal’s Wager is strongly hinted at in this book and it is a concept that simply enrages me. This author uses it almost as an assurance that someone will “get what they deserve” in the end. If you don’t believe in Heaven and Hell what true punishment is there for those who commit acts of Genocide? The rapists who forever change the lives of their victims, if you don’t believe they just die and face no punishment above it. Do you really want that to be true? When all your Christian friends get into heaven do you want to be the one who has sacrificed your afterlife?
Like the author makes clear, these are all to do with the less objective aspects of the human experience that you can’t prove or disprove. But believing in a deity out of fear, not love, is something that I frankly have no interest in and anyone who suggests that it is appropriate should really question the nature of the being they worship.
Morality, according to the author, specifically comes from Christianity. There are countless articles discussing the morality that has been observed in the animal kingdom. Are they secretly Christians? It also overlooks some of the more questionable things referenced in the Bible that contradict some of today’s moral practices.
One of my biggest issues though is that I don’t understand the author’s own Theology. He disavows Leviticus which has been the section that many an Antitheist will point to as problematic. This author seems to disavow a lot of the Old Testament. Is it is position that everything in the Old Testament should be disregarded?
There’s a section where Hitler is brought up and how Christians opposed him. The thing is… Hitler was Christian. Don’t get me wrong I am well aware that there are major differences between the different denominations of Christianity and Hitler was specifically a Catholic, but he was indeed a Christian. To leave out that detail made it very frustrating, and it was an easy fix. I suppose though that admitting that someone deemed by many to be one of the biggest monsters in history can also call himself Christian would be too much of a problem to the argument.
At one point the author details how, contrary to Atheist predictions, the presence of Christianity in the world is not decreasing. Seeing as he was fond of using the Hitler example I have no problem invoking Godwin’s Law. There were a lot of Nazis in the 1940’s… did that make it right? If sheer numbers of people agreeing is a sign of correct mind set surely Nazism was the way forward.
Despite being an “Invitation to the Sceptical”, this just reaffirmed my Atheism. If a God can be proved, I will believe it. The author seems to know that he cannot provide the truth that is needed so tries to change what proof should encompass. It came as no surprise that the disappointing book by Alister McGrath, Inventing the Universe, was from the same publisher.
I will grant the author that he is more articulate than a lot of the people writing on the same subject, but he still falls into a lot of the same traps. Maybe the Reason for God will be the book that I expected this to be… but I have far too many books in my backlog that I want to read before I entertain the idea of buying that one. I’ve heard that Mere Christianity is the book that these all strive to be, maybe I should add that to my priority reading list.
The thing is, the book starts out ok which is what makes the degeneration of its quality hurt all the more. It starts by telling you that people being of different faiths, and even different levels of devotion, doesn’t mean that we can’t all get along. I love this message as Theology is just one aspect of our lives and there is very little to be gained by dismissing someone on the basis of their faith. I will also commend the book for not outright antagonising Atheists. Though I have major issues with the author and his intellectual dishonesty, I am happy to report that he doesn’t say that I am stupid for not believing.
Very early on in the book, the author makes it very clear that he understands that a lot of Atheists will present arguments regarding the burden of proof, and that as the Christian makes the positive claim they are responsible to prove it. He quickly advises that he will not be tackling these arguments or attempt to refute logical assertions: he is far more focused on the natures of Philosophy and Morality. But fine, maybe this is someone who is going to say that faith is entirely about what you can feel and not taking things literally. Russell’s Tea Pot? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The arguments that Atheists have been submitting for a long time to point out the issues of proving God go untouched in this book. I understand that one of the aspects of God is to have faith in him and not need the proof. This author’s attitude is that proof of God is irrelevant so they have no reason to provide the proof. If you want to convert sceptics to your cause you have to start by looking at how they view the world and appealing to that.
Pascal’s Wager is strongly hinted at in this book and it is a concept that simply enrages me. This author uses it almost as an assurance that someone will “get what they deserve” in the end. If you don’t believe in Heaven and Hell what true punishment is there for those who commit acts of Genocide? The rapists who forever change the lives of their victims, if you don’t believe they just die and face no punishment above it. Do you really want that to be true? When all your Christian friends get into heaven do you want to be the one who has sacrificed your afterlife?
Like the author makes clear, these are all to do with the less objective aspects of the human experience that you can’t prove or disprove. But believing in a deity out of fear, not love, is something that I frankly have no interest in and anyone who suggests that it is appropriate should really question the nature of the being they worship.
Morality, according to the author, specifically comes from Christianity. There are countless articles discussing the morality that has been observed in the animal kingdom. Are they secretly Christians? It also overlooks some of the more questionable things referenced in the Bible that contradict some of today’s moral practices.
One of my biggest issues though is that I don’t understand the author’s own Theology. He disavows Leviticus which has been the section that many an Antitheist will point to as problematic. This author seems to disavow a lot of the Old Testament. Is it is position that everything in the Old Testament should be disregarded?
There’s a section where Hitler is brought up and how Christians opposed him. The thing is… Hitler was Christian. Don’t get me wrong I am well aware that there are major differences between the different denominations of Christianity and Hitler was specifically a Catholic, but he was indeed a Christian. To leave out that detail made it very frustrating, and it was an easy fix. I suppose though that admitting that someone deemed by many to be one of the biggest monsters in history can also call himself Christian would be too much of a problem to the argument.
At one point the author details how, contrary to Atheist predictions, the presence of Christianity in the world is not decreasing. Seeing as he was fond of using the Hitler example I have no problem invoking Godwin’s Law. There were a lot of Nazis in the 1940’s… did that make it right? If sheer numbers of people agreeing is a sign of correct mind set surely Nazism was the way forward.
Despite being an “Invitation to the Sceptical”, this just reaffirmed my Atheism. If a God can be proved, I will believe it. The author seems to know that he cannot provide the truth that is needed so tries to change what proof should encompass. It came as no surprise that the disappointing book by Alister McGrath, Inventing the Universe, was from the same publisher.
I will grant the author that he is more articulate than a lot of the people writing on the same subject, but he still falls into a lot of the same traps. Maybe the Reason for God will be the book that I expected this to be… but I have far too many books in my backlog that I want to read before I entertain the idea of buying that one. I’ve heard that Mere Christianity is the book that these all strive to be, maybe I should add that to my priority reading list.
September 8, 2021
I tend to steer clear from the "apologetics" genre of Christian publishing. For those unaware, apologetics is an academic term for "the defense of the faith." In my experience, however, most Christian apologetics are written to make Christians feel good about holding onto a faith that may at times feel illogical and inconsistent - and, unfortunately, this "preaching to the choir" approach doesn't lend itself to a very compelling read for legitimate skeptics and doubters.
But, Timothy Keller's Making Sense of God is the first Christian apologetics book I've read that's actually written to (and for) the "intellectually enlightened skeptic." I picked this book up at a point in my faith where I didn't expect to challenged by its arguments, but Keller delivers such a blistering critique of secularism that I was shook to my core.
In Making Sense of God, Keller isn't trying to "prove the existence of God," and he admits the futility in such an endeavor. Instead, he's deconstructs the myths and assumptions we make about ethics, justice, happiness, identity, and religion in the enlightened post-Christian Western world. This book is to secularism what Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion is to Christianity - it's that hard to dismiss.
Making Sense of God isn't for everyone. This book will make you think a lot. As such, I had to read it slowly, a chapter at a time, to let Keller's points sink in. Keller also does a good job of separating Christianity from current Christian behavior - he acknowledges the grief and pain Christians have caused in the world, and takes them to task as well.
I don't read a lot of Christian books anymore, just because I often find their contents either too shallow, impractical, or not relatable - Making Sense of God is none of those things. I don't think Making Sense of God will make every spiritual seeker and skeptic a Christian, but I do believe it exposes enough fallacies in the modern secular worldview that it'd be difficult to not evaluate the original Christian worldview on equal intellectual footing.
But, Timothy Keller's Making Sense of God is the first Christian apologetics book I've read that's actually written to (and for) the "intellectually enlightened skeptic." I picked this book up at a point in my faith where I didn't expect to challenged by its arguments, but Keller delivers such a blistering critique of secularism that I was shook to my core.
In Making Sense of God, Keller isn't trying to "prove the existence of God," and he admits the futility in such an endeavor. Instead, he's deconstructs the myths and assumptions we make about ethics, justice, happiness, identity, and religion in the enlightened post-Christian Western world. This book is to secularism what Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion is to Christianity - it's that hard to dismiss.
Making Sense of God isn't for everyone. This book will make you think a lot. As such, I had to read it slowly, a chapter at a time, to let Keller's points sink in. Keller also does a good job of separating Christianity from current Christian behavior - he acknowledges the grief and pain Christians have caused in the world, and takes them to task as well.
I don't read a lot of Christian books anymore, just because I often find their contents either too shallow, impractical, or not relatable - Making Sense of God is none of those things. I don't think Making Sense of God will make every spiritual seeker and skeptic a Christian, but I do believe it exposes enough fallacies in the modern secular worldview that it'd be difficult to not evaluate the original Christian worldview on equal intellectual footing.
April 8, 2023
Although in the title this books claims to be an invitation to the skeptical, I do not recommend it to actual skeptics. I cannot see how anyone could be convinced by Keller's arguments, unless you are already convinced of his case. I feel that this book is not written for skeptics, but for christians who want some reassurance about their beliefs.
This book mostly consists of fallacious arguments. Most notably, the appeal to consequences. It basically boils down to, "I like reality better when there is a God, than when there is no God''. Henceforth, no skeptic would conclude that therefore God exists. Fortunately, Keller even once admits that his arguments are not meant as solid proofs, but to show that the religious (or better, Christian) view is more reasonable than secularism. Again, this will not convince skeptics.
So if you are a skeptic who wants to give religion another shot, do not waste your time on this, you will not be impressed.
This book mostly consists of fallacious arguments. Most notably, the appeal to consequences. It basically boils down to, "I like reality better when there is a God, than when there is no God''. Henceforth, no skeptic would conclude that therefore God exists. Fortunately, Keller even once admits that his arguments are not meant as solid proofs, but to show that the religious (or better, Christian) view is more reasonable than secularism. Again, this will not convince skeptics.
So if you are a skeptic who wants to give religion another shot, do not waste your time on this, you will not be impressed.
June 12, 2020
Tim Keller is now my most read author and I couldn’t be happier to claim that. He just never disappoints and this book is fantastic.
I read “The Reason for God” but Tim about 3 years ago and this book is an amazing prologue to that. This is specifically targeted to someone who would claim to be an atheist, postmodern, or would reject any truth claims. I couldn’t recommend this more highly. I wish I had read this years ago.
I read “The Reason for God” but Tim about 3 years ago and this book is an amazing prologue to that. This is specifically targeted to someone who would claim to be an atheist, postmodern, or would reject any truth claims. I couldn’t recommend this more highly. I wish I had read this years ago.
January 1, 2021
Last read of the year! Probably one of Keller's most academic and philosophical books. Keller offers the Christian perspective on six key areas of life being: meaning, satisfaction, freedom, identity, hope and justice. Keller argues that Christianity makes the most cultural and emotional sense from a logical and philosophical vantage point. He finally contends that Christianity makes more rational sense of the world than non-belief. Keller says that secularism isn't so much a loss of faith as it is a shift into a new set of beliefs. So much to chew on in this book! It'll surely be one I'll return to for years to come!
February 5, 2017
This book is such an encouragement to me as a believer to remember the riches we have in Christ, and that the Christian view of reality "makes the most sense emotionally, culturally, and rationally". Keller has a gentle, compelling way of communicating some profound truths as he takes the reader through six things we cannot live without and shows the beautiful way that these needs are only met fully and coherently in Christianity. Highly recommended for everyone.
March 4, 2017
Highest rating and recommendation. Not sure it would convince the most skeptical of skeptics, but the rational, well-laid-out arguments will surely nudge some. Maybe more importantly, it can help believers to explain to skeptics why we believe what we do. Worthy of multiple readings (hence the 5 star rating).
August 14, 2019
Keller writes with nuance and compassion as he compellingly lays out the arguments for why it makes sense to believe in God. What I most appreciate is the breadth of his sources and that he doesn’t set up straw men as his opponents but instead treats his readers with respect and admits his own flaws in his argument. I can’t recommend this book enough.
June 25, 2020
This is one of the best pastoral diagnosis and critique of secularism. Keller shows that secularism is a religion and that it has pain points as well.
If you're considering Christianity or wrestling with your faith in secularism I'd encourage you to start here.
If you're considering Christianity or wrestling with your faith in secularism I'd encourage you to start here.
March 4, 2019
Lucid, compelling, humble, and winsome. Keller is clearly our foremost popular apologist.
March 28, 2019
Tim Keller dispensa apresentações, então, sem delongas, o que tenho a dizer digo com muita ênfase:
LEIA ESSE LIVRO E DÊ UM DE PRESENTE ou EMPRESTE A SEU SEU AMIGO CÉTICO.
LEIA ESSE LIVRO E DÊ UM DE PRESENTE ou EMPRESTE A SEU SEU AMIGO CÉTICO.
May 12, 2018
Loved this book. The following excerpt from the book explains what it's about: To say "You must prove God to me" is to choose and believe in a form of rationality that most philosophers today consider naive. Neither religion nor secularity can be demonstrably proven - they are systems of thinking and believing that need to be compared and contrasted to one another in order to determine which makes the most sense. That is, which makes the most sense of our experience, of things we know and need to explain? Which one makes the most sense of our social experience and addresses the problems we face in living together? And which of these is the most logically consistent? In short, we need to ask which of these views of reality makes the most sense emotionally, culturally and rationally.
Tim Keller goes back to the basics of human life, things we cannot live without: meaning, satisfaction, freedom, identity, moral compass, hope and justice. He offers the secular view of how we make sense of these things in our world and then the Christian view. He leaves it up to the reader to come to their own conclusion about what makes most sense.
Personally, I found that although a lot of the explanations of the secular view sound reasonable on paper, you hardly see many people actually living them out. A good example would be the case of morals. If they are truly subjective and created by societies or within ourselves, why is it that we often disagree with how others live if they're following their own moral compass or the one set by their culture? Not only do we disagree, but most often we try to enforce our own moral compass upon other cultures/individuals. It seems as if we actually believe in a higher standard of morals, a moral obligation if you will, that some things are objectively wrong and evil to do whether you feel like it is or not. If all morality is person specific or socially constructed, how can any statement of right and wrong be true for all? . . . "Your moral values are just socially constructed, but mine are not, and so are true for everyone." This self-justifying, self-contradictory stance is pervasive in our secular culture today. . . In theory we are relativists, but in practice and interaction with those who disagree with us we are absolutists. This schizophrenia is a major source of the increasing polarization we see in our culture.
I would love to read this book with a couple of my secular friends and see what they think of his secular explanations for these important things we all live with. I think Tim Keller does a great job being objective and sharing their perspective but I'd like to know if others agree. Tim has been a minister in Manhattan for nearly thirty years and his church holds a weekly discussion for people who are skeptical about God so he's not ignorant to their views. (See more about it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us...) In any case, I think it's a really good book that can be read by anyone, secular or not.
Tim Keller goes back to the basics of human life, things we cannot live without: meaning, satisfaction, freedom, identity, moral compass, hope and justice. He offers the secular view of how we make sense of these things in our world and then the Christian view. He leaves it up to the reader to come to their own conclusion about what makes most sense.
Personally, I found that although a lot of the explanations of the secular view sound reasonable on paper, you hardly see many people actually living them out. A good example would be the case of morals. If they are truly subjective and created by societies or within ourselves, why is it that we often disagree with how others live if they're following their own moral compass or the one set by their culture? Not only do we disagree, but most often we try to enforce our own moral compass upon other cultures/individuals. It seems as if we actually believe in a higher standard of morals, a moral obligation if you will, that some things are objectively wrong and evil to do whether you feel like it is or not. If all morality is person specific or socially constructed, how can any statement of right and wrong be true for all? . . . "Your moral values are just socially constructed, but mine are not, and so are true for everyone." This self-justifying, self-contradictory stance is pervasive in our secular culture today. . . In theory we are relativists, but in practice and interaction with those who disagree with us we are absolutists. This schizophrenia is a major source of the increasing polarization we see in our culture.
I would love to read this book with a couple of my secular friends and see what they think of his secular explanations for these important things we all live with. I think Tim Keller does a great job being objective and sharing their perspective but I'd like to know if others agree. Tim has been a minister in Manhattan for nearly thirty years and his church holds a weekly discussion for people who are skeptical about God so he's not ignorant to their views. (See more about it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/us...) In any case, I think it's a really good book that can be read by anyone, secular or not.
May 29, 2019
Le meilleur livre d'apologétique que j'ai lu en termes de pertinence. Il aborde les problématiques que se posent réellement les gens de la vie de tous les jours (et pas les spécialistes, philosophes, théologiens libéraux etc). Ce que j'aime beaucoup chez Keller, c'est qu'il répond souvent non seulement avec les bons arguments mais il les explique très bien, les utilise pour montrer à quel point le christianisme est pertinent et utile pour l'homme, et essaye d'attirer lecteur non-croyant à cette foi merveilleuse qu'il décrit. Ca doit être du au fait qu'il est premièrement pasteur, et non pas dans la recherche. Il a l'habitude d'échanger avec des sceptiques et de les conseiller de manière personnelle et de répondre à leurs objections d'une manière humaine et adaptée à leurs besoins.
Ce livre s'adresse en particulier aux occidentaux (plutôt déistes-athées-agnostiques qu'on rencontre souvent en des Français). Mais il concerne aussi indirectement tout le monde comme tout homme est confronté de manière plus générale aux problèmes décrits dans ce livre. Voici ces problématiques : la mort, l'espoir en quelque chose, la satisfaction de ses désirs, le sens de la vie, le mal et la souffrance, l'identité personnelle, le bien et le mal, la liberté, la science, la réalité de la vie et de la résurrection de Jésus.
Il montre que jésus et le message de la Bible, l'Evangile est la seule solution à toutes ces aspirations de tout être-humain. Jésus, en renonçant à sa propre liberté, est venu vivre dans notre monde une vie semblable à la nôtre, une vie de souffrance et est mort pour nous délivrer de toutes ces angoisses existentielles et nous ramener à Dieu. Ces crises existentielles sont le résultat d'une relation brisée avec notre Créateur : Dieu. La seule manière de retrouver un sens profond et durable à sa vie est d'avoir une relation renouvelée avec le Créateur.
Par opposition à cela, il montre à quel point la vision matérialiste du monde ("tout n'est que matière et Dieu n'existe pas") n'offre aucune solution pour répondre aux besoins listés ci-dessus et au contraire mène à un vide existentiel et moral, et à une vie incohérente avec les intuitions profondes de l'Homme.
Ce livre s'adresse en particulier aux occidentaux (plutôt déistes-athées-agnostiques qu'on rencontre souvent en des Français). Mais il concerne aussi indirectement tout le monde comme tout homme est confronté de manière plus générale aux problèmes décrits dans ce livre. Voici ces problématiques : la mort, l'espoir en quelque chose, la satisfaction de ses désirs, le sens de la vie, le mal et la souffrance, l'identité personnelle, le bien et le mal, la liberté, la science, la réalité de la vie et de la résurrection de Jésus.
Il montre que jésus et le message de la Bible, l'Evangile est la seule solution à toutes ces aspirations de tout être-humain. Jésus, en renonçant à sa propre liberté, est venu vivre dans notre monde une vie semblable à la nôtre, une vie de souffrance et est mort pour nous délivrer de toutes ces angoisses existentielles et nous ramener à Dieu. Ces crises existentielles sont le résultat d'une relation brisée avec notre Créateur : Dieu. La seule manière de retrouver un sens profond et durable à sa vie est d'avoir une relation renouvelée avec le Créateur.
Par opposition à cela, il montre à quel point la vision matérialiste du monde ("tout n'est que matière et Dieu n'existe pas") n'offre aucune solution pour répondre aux besoins listés ci-dessus et au contraire mène à un vide existentiel et moral, et à une vie incohérente avec les intuitions profondes de l'Homme.
October 10, 2021
4.5 rating.
For those familiar with Keller, many of the arguments made in Making Sense will be familiar as well. But they are presented alongside fresh, illuminating evidence.
For those unfamiliar with Keller, this is an excellent, quick read that makes use of logic and reason to explore challenges against Christianity. This book is more for skeptics and non-believers than it is for Christians - Keller does not sneer at doubt nor condescend. Instead, he treats the arguments against faith with diligence and respect. There is no leaving your brain (or your self worth) at the door.
No matter what you believe, if you have ever doubted the claims of the Christian Bible, this is a fascinating read.
For those familiar with Keller, many of the arguments made in Making Sense will be familiar as well. But they are presented alongside fresh, illuminating evidence.
For those unfamiliar with Keller, this is an excellent, quick read that makes use of logic and reason to explore challenges against Christianity. This book is more for skeptics and non-believers than it is for Christians - Keller does not sneer at doubt nor condescend. Instead, he treats the arguments against faith with diligence and respect. There is no leaving your brain (or your self worth) at the door.
No matter what you believe, if you have ever doubted the claims of the Christian Bible, this is a fascinating read.
April 1, 2020
I am not entirely persuaded that we can reason our way through everything to the correct answer. People disagree far too often. They are given the same information and come to drastically different conclusions. We function more, as cognitive psychologist Jonathan Haidt put it, as personal lawyers than unbiased thinkers. I've also been surprised with how everyone is so certain. Timothy Keller presents a compelling logical case for God. However, the question is, is it enough? Is logically a priori thinking enough to settle the existence of a metaphysical entity? I am not sure. Keller is a good start for Christian Apologetics.
May 28, 2022
Meget bra. Imponert over hvor belest Keller er; ikke mange slike bøker som siterer alt fra Sokrates til Disney-figuren Ella ifra 'frost'. Portretterer på en god måte hvordan kristen tro gjør rede for grunnleggende konsept som 'frihet', 'identitet', 'mening' osv. Meget god bok i en postmoderne tid.
November 13, 2022
This took me a long time to get through but was so good! Tim Keller crushes it every time! Highly recommend if you’re new to Christianity or just want to learn more about the foundations of the Christian faith!
April 10, 2017
This book contains what I find to be the most compelling arguments for a worldview that includes the God of the Bible. It spurred me on in my faith and I will use it as a regular reference.
May 8, 2021
Uninvasive yet confronting
Uninvasive yet confronting, this book is a go to for someone who says he doesn't have anything to do with faith and God and can very well do without.
Uninvasive yet confronting, this book is a go to for someone who says he doesn't have anything to do with faith and God and can very well do without.
November 23, 2021
Persuasive. I wish all people who are either skeptical about Christianity or are in process of "deconstructing" their faith would read this book.
February 6, 2024
4.5/5
This was an excellent book that was very thought provoking! I would definitely recommend it for both Christians and unbelievers of Christianity.
This was an excellent book that was very thought provoking! I would definitely recommend it for both Christians and unbelievers of Christianity.
September 19, 2025
Keller does a great job bridging lofty philosophical concepts to tangible, pragmatic conclusions. It was very engaging and nuanced, yet an easy enough read that I could listen as an audiobook.
The arguments I found most compelling often came from the comparison of secular and orthodox doctrines, wherein Keller would reductio ad absurdum. It is shown that many of our cultures' most familiar dogmas are not only incomplete and unsatisfying to the soul, but also increasingly severed from science and reason.
I was thoroughly impressed by Keller's well rounded appeals, aimed graciously and respectfully towards other truth-seekers.
The arguments I found most compelling often came from the comparison of secular and orthodox doctrines, wherein Keller would reductio ad absurdum. It is shown that many of our cultures' most familiar dogmas are not only incomplete and unsatisfying to the soul, but also increasingly severed from science and reason.
I was thoroughly impressed by Keller's well rounded appeals, aimed graciously and respectfully towards other truth-seekers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 574 reviews