I will start with a general observation: in the first half of the book, the questions thrown at christianity are typically presented in a philosophical rather than empirical context. This allows Keller to force the dialog along one of two paths: 1. the antagonist is either charged with submitting a relativistic claim, or 2. they are obligated to admit special access to universal truth. In the event that we assume relativism, any argument against christianity can be dismissed, for it is rendered as nothing more than an alternate personal perspective. In the event that we appeal to universal truth, the argument (which is positioned only in a philosophical context) is deemed to be nothing more than an alternate and indefensible faith claim.

It’s interesting to note that although Keller clearly believes in the concept of universal truth, he frequently relies on the principle of relativism to defend christianity. Here are two examples:

To reject the bible as regressive is to assume that you have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is regressive and progressive can be discerned. That belief is surely as narrow and exclusive as the views in the bible you regard as offensive.

In one of my after-service discussions a woman told me that the very idea of a judging God was offensive. I said, “Why aren’t you offended by the idea of a forgiving God?” She looked puzzled. I continued, “I respectfully urge you to consider your cultural location when you find the Christian teaching about hell offensive.” … Why, i concluded, should Western cultural sensibilities be the final court in which to judge whether Christianity is valid? I asked the woman gently whether she thought her culture superior to non-Western ones. She immediately answered “no”. “Well then,” i asked, “why should your culture’s objections to Christianity trump theirs?”

These passages mute any attempt to critique christian beliefs. A skeptic is forced to claim privileged access to the truth, at which point skepticism is construed as akin to religious faith; or alternatively, to admit that they are offering a divergent perspective that is neither right nor wrong, and as such, incapable of contradicting opposing views.

This is a clever, but ultimately unfair, approach. A more discerning technique would be to position the conversation in a real-world context. In other words, instead of relegating topics such as judgement or forgiveness to the philosophical realm, we could ask questions that submit to empirical investigation; questions such as: how do forgiveness and judgement measurably affect human happiness, peacefulness, and a general sense of well being? Pain is measurable. Anxiety and stress are measurable. We can accurately assess the affect of specific behaviours on the human condition, and in doing so, draw intelligent conclusions. We can make sensible claims regarding moral activity without broadly suggesting that our culture is better than others, and without saying that all perspectives are equally valid. We do not need to restrict our assessments of human morality to the philosophical realm where we are either forced to claim unsubstantiated access to truth or else yield to an ultimately fruitless standpoint of personal relativity.

After having “dealt” with the objections against christianity, in the second half of the book Keller shifts focus and seeks to develop arguments in support of the faith. However, not surprisingly, his own arguments are not subjected to the shouts of relativism and arrogance which abounded in the first section of the book. He allows himself this convenience by suggesting that in a sense, christianity is a universal truth that doesn’t really need to be justified, for everybody already knows it to be true; his job is simply to reorient the attention of non-believers to this rather obvious fact.

I have tried not to prove the existence of God to you. My goal has been to show you that you already know God is there. To some degree I have been treating the nonexistence of God has an intellectual problem, but it is much more than that. It not only makes all moral choices meaningless, but it makes all life meaningless too.

He seeks to achieve his aim by presenting an array of clues, that although individually are not overtly convincing, when considered as a whole, are pitched as an almost water tight case for God. The “clues” include: the need for a first cause, the fine tuning of the universe, the regularity of nature, and the inexplicable sense of beauty and meaning that touches us all. And the real clincher is morality; the idea that without God, we have no means to judge right or wrong, and no justifiable or consistent basis for understanding or promoting human rights.

As with most of the arguments in the book, these claims regarding morality lose credibility by being framed in a philosophical context. It simply does not make sense at any other level. There are only two ways in which people can know the morality of God: we are either born with his morality imprinted on our very being, or we learn it (presumably, directly, or indirectly, via the only tangible reference point we have, which is the bible). If it is learned, we must acknowledge that human morality cannot be universal, for anyone that has not read the bible, or been in some way instructed of its teachings, cannot be moral (which is just another way of saying that a significant portion of the non-western world is not moral). And if we are born prewired with the morality of God, then what possible argument could be offered against the notion that this “prewiring” is the result of a purely biological process, and not the invisible hand of God? It is clear that a vast array of human abilities and character traits are universally prewired (such as our ability to to learn language). There is no reason to suggest that these traits are not biologically driven; nor is there reason to suggest that our morality is not equally consistent with biological origins.

I consider it a significant error to suggest that morality only makes sense when humanity has an external reference point against which to judge right and wrong. Two other criteria suffice: an agreed social framework and a biological aversion to pain. We do not need the bible (or the divine inspiration of God) to tell us that rape is wrong: the deep physical, psychological and emotional hurt experienced by those that suffer this horrendous crime is its own justification. And for those actions that do not tangibly affect the human condition, what matters is social agreement. There is no need to argue for a position of universal morality; all that is required is a sensitivity to the discomfort of others (a sensitivity which itself can be explained through evolutionary theory).

I will now briefly comment on a few points raised in the book that specifically caught my attention. The first relates to the chapter, “How could a good God allow suffering in the world”. The problem of suffering is a major thorn in the side of christianity. How do you reconcile the concept of an all knowing, all loving, all powerful God, with the stark reality of human suffering? There is no easy answer. Well, so i thought. Keller appears to think otherwise. He offers up two solutions. The first: good things can come from suffering. The second: Jesus suffered too. In other words, if the first explanation seems a little shallow, you can at least take comfort in the idea that suffering is a necessary evil that even Jesus had to endure. Not that the second answer provides any consolation to the non-christian. How these solutions serve to explain the recent earthquake in China, the cyclone in Burma, the sickness, starvation, deformity, disillusionment, and unnecessary pain experienced by hundreds of thousands daily, he does not say. The chapter skirts around the difficult questions; it takes a narrow and shallow perspective of suffering, fails to comment on popular theodicies, and their failings, and ultimately, proves deeply unsatisfying.

Another point of contention in the book is Keller’s description of hell. He states: “It is a travesty to picture God casting people into a put who are crying ‘I’m sorry! Let me out!’” I find this perspective somewhat surprising considering verses in the bible such as Mark 9:47-48:

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

And Matthew 13:41-42:

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

How does Keller propose the non-believer is resigned to hell? It’s certainly not through the judgement of God. Instead he absolves God of responsibility, and suggests that hell is simply the non-believer’s “freely chosen identity apart from God”. It’s a gradual process that apparently works as follows:

[It starts with] “addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling and pornography. First, there is disinitegration, because as time goes on you need more and more of the addictive substance to get an equal kick, which leads to less and less satisfaction. Second, there is isolation, as increasingly you blame others and circumstances in order to justify your behaviours… When we build our lives on anything but God, that thing - though a good thing - becomes an enslaving addiction, something we have to have to be happy. Personal disintegration happens on a broader scale. In eternity, this disintegration goes on forever. There is increasing isolation, denial, delusion, and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell.

So there you have it. If you remain unconvinced by the arguments for God, if you do not see the “clues”, you are ultimately on a path to misery that will eventually lead you to self-assigned separation from God. Judgement is strangely absent in Keller’s theology. Life for the non-believer is just a gradual spiral into addiction and self-loathing so great that we become shut off from God in our own personal hell. In the first section of the book, an idea such as this would be denounced as an unjustifable claim of utlimate truth or else meaningless relativistic dribble. Here it is presented as a blindly obvious representation of truth - even if it appears to be at odds with the biblical rendering of judgement and hell.

And this brings me to a third point of interest: Keller, once again adopting the philosophical high road at the expense of real world experience, claims that “a life not centered on God leads to emptiness” and “an identity not based on God also leads inevitably to deep forms of addiction”. He wants us to believe that all non-christians lead meaningless, depressive, addictive, and ultimately destructive lives. This is simply absurd. It is empirically and abundantly evident that many non-christians live happy, meaningful, fulfilling, and self-sacrificing lives. To suggest otherwise is to argue that “if i feel worthless without God, then so must everybody else”. This view is completely unjustified.

Keller admits that none of his “clues” are actual proofs of God. “Every one of them is rationally avoidable”. And yet despite earnest and rational investigation, if i don’t pick up on the “hints” of God, i am to spend an eternity in hell. I just don’t get this. This position fails to accept the reality that different people are affected by different ideas. For one person the problem of suffering is a major road block to the acceptance of christianity, to others it’s nothing more than a mild mystery. To some, predestination is the most perplexing problem to ever take root him human consciousness, to others it’s an idle curiosity. To some, the very existence of the universe, the mere presence of something rather than nothing, the expression of beauty and the regularity of nature, are all sure-fire sign posts that drill home the necessity of God; to others, like myself, they are nothing more than vague attempts to make sense of complex ideas that can be more expediently and rationally explained through alternate means. And yet i, and any other non-christian, are to expect eternal torment in hell because we objectively, earnestly, and rationally consider the so called sign posts to be pointing in another direction. A chilling idea.

However, despite these strong criticisms, there is much that i enjoyed in this book. It is clearly written, the style is engaging, and although all of the arguments presented are standard scripts of the apologetic tradition, Keller does add his own unique and typically thought-provoking spin on the material. His research is commendable, and he draws on a vast array of sources, including those from the new atheist movement, such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, and from revered apologists including Alvin Plantinga and N.T Wright. At times confusing, at times compelling, often frustrating, and occasionally controversial, The Reason for God is anything but dull.