The Veritas Forum: Belief in an Age of Skepticism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- "Belief in an Age of Skepticism?"
March 4, 2008, at The University of California, Berkeley
Noted pastor and author Dr. Tim Keller discusses the place of exclusive truth in a pluralistic society in Wheeler Auditorium, followed by a Q&A session.
Hosted by Reformed University Fellowship, Dr. Keller's talk is part of The Veritas Forum at Cal, following Francis Collins' lecture in February on Christianity and science.
For more Veritas Forum recordings, visit: www.veritas.org...
Holy crap is this guy charming. Whether you agree with his view of the world, truth, reality, afterlife... or if there is one... he was incredibly respectful, considerate and humble. A great listener, did a great job of not cutting people off... Wow! I really learned a lot about how to treat people while watching this. 8>D
J.R.R. Tolkien, Sufjan Stevens, Tim Keller: the heart, soul, and mind of contemporary Christianity. woot.
Thank you for posting this. Tim Keller is wonderful.
I'm impressed with how peaceful and largely mutually respectful this discussion about Christianity was.
we as Christians need to hear this message just as much, if not more, than unbelievers of God!
I love that! I discovered "The Veritas" yesterday...! I'm sooo happy to find Christians taking position for the Gospel. :D
Fantastic lecture, rarely do I hear a speech that fundamentally changes my mind, and I will share this and probably rewatch this 50 times over!
He makes it believable by the way he does what he is doing. He is confident and yet humble. He's respectful but willing to stand in his faith. He's well read but makes it accessible in plain speech. "The pneumenal became phenomenal"--- the Incarnation. Would that more Christians could follow his model. We need more apologists like him.
I doubt there's a better man for conceivably legitimizing Christianity, for this crowd, than Keller.
He is particularly familiar with philosophy, that I must appreciate, although he is not being overweening by overly applying the philosophical arguments. He is being both accessible and intelligent. A admirable path to preach.
I remain unswayed on the overall issue of God's existence, but damn what a great, hilarious and extremely intelligent guy. I would love to hear more from Dr. Keller.
Thanks for posting, UC Berkeley!
Only 103,000 views for a subject that could impact the entire globe. Gangnam Style gets 1 billion views and salvation gets barely noticed ... Keller is brilliant AND humble. This video should be shown in every church in America.
I would highly recommend reading his book, "The Reason for God" whether you are a skeptic or a seeker. Honestly though, I hope you all truly seek God before you reject him and miss out on a world of fulfillment in Him. Philosophical arguments are helpful, but once you fall in love with Jesus, they will only confirm what you already know because you have experienced Him yourself.
Keller has found the truth and his agenda is only to follow it. He is one of the most selfless people I have ever known, essentially choosing to live in poverty and consistently avoiding media attention. You have no basis to assume the term "truth" is cogent, must less "logic," or the obligation to be rational, or even the free agency required to think for ones self, outside of a Christian epistemology.
That one guy that couldn't get his question across. Poor guy. :(
I'm glad Tim Keller stuck with it and was patient with him.
I just _love_ listening to Tim...
Does it make you feel better? LOL!
Tim is an extraordinary person and I can’t help but admire his faith and reasoning.
Why isn't his "reasoning" backed by scienctific fact?
Tim's reasoning is backed by scientific facts. He is very learned and informed. Do you have a specific objection?
SO interesting. Thanks for posting!
Man that Q&A section, woof. Tim Keller is a wildly patient man.
Very humble #Keller #berkley #skepticism
Thanks for the upload.
As a Christian theist evolutionist, I would not be surprised if Dr. Keller is a proponent of evolution much like Francis Collins is.
Wow, this was really good.
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more aggressive claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
God has answered so many prayers for me is personal knowledge.
"I wonder why this kind of things has to be so complicated."
Critical thinking requires being careful, but doesn't have to be complicated. I think of logic as a sort of codified common sense.
The scary thing is: once you learn about logical fallacies, you start noticing them in many places: in newspaper articles, in political speeches, in textbooks, in everyday conversations! Dealing with all THAT can get complicated, especially when those around you don't share the desire to think critically.
I was referring to projectid4's brief remark (see above) on this thread. I actually dig Tim Keller. He's refreshing.
I thought he did a great job of answering their questions, especially when most were presented as comments looking to be agreed with rather than real questions. The problem of not being satisfied with his answers comes more with whether or not you agree with his point of view on the "question." How can one provide an appealing answer about the benevolence of God or about the sentence to heaven or hell if you don't believe in them, but to say: "yes you are right, that is contradictory."
Unfortunately it is the case that some out there deny the existence of truth, even though this doesn't make sense.
But your question of how reliable is our ability to find out the truth is a good one. How we know what we know is at the heart of many issues and most of the time, we don't even bother to ask the question.
I think we have several ways of knowing, for example, our rational faculties, observation and experiment, intuition, and trusting credible authorities.
This is a great guy.
"I believe if we doubt a claim and want to confirm that, we go through scientific process or logical proofing through mathematical models to confirm its closeness to the truth."
This is one example of where trust of credible authorities comes in as a way of knowing truth. When you say "we" you don't mean you or me, you mean some (hopefully) trustworthy scientists will use the scientific method to come to some answer. Those of us not doing the testing must decide if we can trust those who do.
Why was this copyrighted? This is totally immoral for a Christian organisation. They should want this to be distributed freely.
I hate to sound rude, but evolution is a few steps beyond theory at this point. especailly in the realm of genetics. It is simpily the best explaination of currently presented facts. It could be untrue, but I think most scientists are willing to take that in stride. I don't see many avid supporters of evolution, just people like me who are like "I don't want to believe this, but it makes sense, so let's give it some creedence."
The JPS translation of Genesis 1:26 still retains the "Us" and "Our" when God creates man in His image. If we are in His image, then would we not demonstrate - however limited - His plural nature? Deut 6:5 appeals to this nature when we're told to Love God with our heart (which was understood to be the mind), soul and might. We are trinitarian beings. We think. We feel. We act. Yet we are one. I see no problem with a trinitarian understanding of God as a unified plurality...
I can answer, but first, are you in agreement that some true things are not known by the scientific method?
As an ex-atheist, ex-communist and now Christians, I can not agree more with the idea of "being humble with the exclusive truth". Actually if you look at any traditional and long lasting faith, (atheist to me is just another belief btw), they all have a common point of humble yourself with love. Christianity should have been the most radical way of humbling yourself, but alas a lot of us ignored this part.
Have you read Francis Collins' book?
I completely agree that God is one. I am one. I see no distinction between the Greek or Hebrew way of thinking about the human composition. How can a being of one nature love itself? My hand can't shake itself. I can Love my neighbor as myself as commanded by Yeshua because I am a unified plurality. Independent of Greek philosophy, I know that I think, feel and act. The cadence may be emphasizing, but why heart,soul,might? What is your understanding of the Holy Spirit?
Modernity might have happened in Asia, India, Latin America, maybe Africa, definitely in USA. But let's not forget that one of the most important aspects of modernity is access to education. There's been development in these areas (except USA the rest are 3rd world countries), but has education become more available, and what kind? If Christianity hasn't grown in Europe is because they have access to and enjoy good education. It's levels of education we should look at instead of modernity.
Careful to associate what would be a God guided process to Philosophy of Science. They are in stark contrast.
@winston2015 - yes, that's true, but constantinism religion does not define the whole or limits of christian faith or belief,..... some argue that Constantinism was more of a corruption of authentic christian faith and practices.
Keller is a true "Skeptic" who would like us to believe that we can not know anything for sure, (which is what the Greek Skeptics taught) except what he would like you to believe.
His reference to Nietzsche and Peter Burger is "double speak."
I can sympathize with your concern. As a scientist, I want solid foundations for what I believe about the world, and to be open to revising that in light of new evidence.
It's intellectually dishonest when any church dismisses healthy skepticism about its extraordinary claims. If the church wants someone to believe, e.g., Jesus' resurrection, they need to provide persuasive evidence, not just confident claims. Sounds like the church let you down, but it hasn't stopped your pursuit of truth.
55:10 - 1:06:10
This whole exchange is almost unbearable. Both speakers try to dissipate the argument with counter-arguments, and fail to address the original topic. What the pastor is trying to refer to, or is attempting subtly allude to without naming, is called the "fate of the unlearned." Also, predestination is and has always been debated about. Why do neither of the speakers directly refer to it? Is the word not in the pastor's vernacular, or does he fear the text's implications?
OK, tell us where they are.
if you had said "all religions have a chanced of being right" that's one thing; but an EQUAL chance? why an EQUAL chance?
Shocking, frankly shocking. There are well-educated people who think that belief has value and therefore others need/ought to believe what they believe. Religion is abuse of the highest order.
@fiercey some people think he did, but in some parts it seems to be written in a different style than is typical 'Paulinic' (i made that word up). But other parts are.
Could you please give me your definition of what it means to be "a good person." And after stating it, could you give reasons why anyone, including you, should follow your definition. Further could you demonstrate what would be the purpose of your goodness if all it gives you is a feeling of "safety" in the knowledge that it is better to be damned for doing so.
OK! But where did that idea of the golden rule come from? And who decides what is "golden?" Is it fairness? Is it Justice? Who decides what is harmful? To a pedophile "harm" means something a lot different than I suppose your definition would be, right? And whether you realize it or not, you ARE "kow-towing to one man's personal law;" Your own! That may be the major reason why the world is in such a mess. We have 6 billion plus little "personal laws" bumping into one another. Comments please?
@jhanov442 Where did you watch the Columbia University talk that you're talking about?
Well, yes, but only because the Bible says so. It's really unique in offering us a personal relationship with God. However, if it's "not the works of God but of men," I wouldn't agree that God is loving an just. If you don't think the Bible can be trusted, and I mean this as a serious question, on what evidence do you base the idea that he's loving and just?
No, I'm using an apodictical transcendental argument to show that science and the absolute, universal, abstract, invariant, prescriptive laws of logic which you appeal to are not even cogent in an atheist universe that consists entirely of only constantly fuxuating, physical particularities. Laws of logic are not matter nor in motion and the scientific method rests on the assumption that the universe is NOT random and constantly evolving. See you on the Bahnsen page, check out the two debates.
AmazingGrey:
(1) Is there evidence that worldwide more and more people are dropping religion?
(2) What are the relevant facts that the religious are ignoring?
As someone who considers himself to be a very conservative even pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic, I found this to be one of the most engaging thought provocative talks I have ever heard. Thank you, Dr. Keller!
I agree humility is in the delivery, not the making of claims.
But not sure I see what the original problem is. All truth claims are exclusive; they say the world is one way and not some other. By "huge" truth claim, I suppose this means a claim about ultimate or spiritual reality. But everyone has a take on spiritual reality and believes the world would be better off if we adopted their view. Is it exhibiting "aggressiveness" to have a take on spiritual reality? Perhaps, but we all do it.
MLK is one of my favorite human beings he was brave and his faith was astounding.
@Moochie007
what is tragic is that people say "there is no evidence" like its a prayer without ever bothering to look at it.
We cannot conclude from the mere existence of rival truth claims that there is no truth. That's the error of relativism. Claims about reality like "the cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be", "there is a god who is separate from the cosmos", "evil exists", "there is no real evil as evil is just a social construct", etc--all these claims are either true or false. Even though they contradict one another, it doesn't follow that all these claims are false.
I have no claims about moon landing, as you can see. I'm not affiliated with libertarians, atheist is not a derogarory term in my vocabulary. Do you have any other questions?
everybody needs to read.. The Reason for God.
I'm not discrediting the scientific method. I believe it's a reasonable way to learn things about the material world. I just don't think it's the only way to truth, which is a rather bold assertion. The claim "the scientific method is the only way to truth" is not a scientific claim; it is a philosophical point of view. You cannot use science to prove the statement true or false.
Well said. As a working stiff who has had the good fortune to be retired for 4 years I have been shocked to discover a love for true science and have had to lay down resentment towards the dead religion of the scientific/academic establishment that misinformed, and alienated, me in my youth.
“Because the carnal mind* is enmity against God. Romans 8:7.
*carne = meat, carnal mind = meat head.
“When I look back to all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can even think at all.” ‘Kodachrome’, Paul Simon.
“Follow the money trail.” H. Ross Perot.
It is not that 'all religions are equally right ' but that they are One (equally limited)
They are all expression of the the 'Poetic Genius' (or the Imagination of Man). The Kingdom of Heaven (& the Garden of Eden) lie within. It is not that "there is no heaven/hell after death" but that there's no reason to imagine such things.
The grace narrative takes away the feeling of superiority. No doubt.
So what your saying is that our ideas of good and bad are relative since part of it comes from behavior that is learned. Also being altruistic isn't always beneficial. I don't think it's instinctive for any animal to help another animal that is genetically alien to them. Animals that sacrificed their needs for others would not have been selected to survive and natural selection does not work on whole populations.
I would not contest that, many Christians believe that and it's not totally inconsistent with Christian thought. It's when evolution is put forward as the guiding force (rather than God) behind creation. Evolution as origin is a philosophical leap of faith i am quite unwilling to take (something coming from nothing is quite preposterous).
I am struck by the omission, in this otherwise cogent exposition, of any mention of Torah and Judaism in the Minister's frequent lists of of texts and "religions". As an ephebe of Martin Luther, I wonder if something of Luther's virulent antisemitism rubbed off on him. Or was the omission of Jesus's own religion intended to distract us from the precursor sources of our recognition of
G-d's absolute and direct authority.
tertullianz:
1st: "The fact that there are many 'truth claims' negates 'truth'" What do you mean by that? At face value, it seems you mean that the mere existence of more than one claim about reality negates the (I would think self-evident) fact that reality is one particular way and not some other. Two people may disagree about where China is on the globe, but that doesn't mean China has no well-defined location. Can we conclude from a diversity of truth-claims that there is no truth?
"If not how can you know atheism is not a belief system yet religion is?"
i just put the 2 words
belief: yes, that there is no go
belief system: mmm might not. I put the terms wiki offer
life stance: no commmon agree
religion: no structured organization
world view: There are some agreements,but in futorology, praxeology, some question that in the ontological plane that need to be answered with "i dont know" wich doesnt seem to be a ver agglutinating statement.
tertullianz:
2nd: I'm also a proponent of logic and reason and the rules of argument, as cornerstones for how we attain knowledge. Given that, let me encourage you in fairness to avoid the ad hominem and genetic fallacies. Address the factual claims of religious adherents rather than attacking the adherents themselves or their behavior (or that of their forebears). These fallacies end any genuine discussion of religion, because it means one doesn't address the claims at all.
Well, I don`t think the issue, in most cases, is about whether claims are true or not. It is our ability to tell the truth that is questionable, isn`t it?
I'M TRIGGERED!!! :-)
It seems like you're misinterpreting something. I didn't comment on anything of the "moon video" you've mentioned above, it must be the comment written by the person who posted that video. I, personally, have no idea if they went there or not. I don't understand what you're talking about regarding my "blind faith"??? Regarding Keller, I didn't hear anything enlightening in his talk, did you? If you did, please point it out to me, if you can.
Interesting. Where did you get the idea that God is loving and just?
Evolution is not absolute science. Evolutionist have to exercise a certain amount of faith.
Not a single new, logical, or completed thought in Dr. Keller's speech. He can navigate through the biblical text to some extend, but that 's where it stops.
frankie,
1st, even with the word "yet", the statement is still a philosophical claim, not a scientific one (i.e., it's not in the category of a testable scientific hypothesis like "humans are made of carbon"; it's a worldview claim.)
2nd, how do you know 3+9=12, or that someone loves you, or that murder is wrong, or that China exists? Would you (1) regard these as true, and if so, (2) is it the scientific method that leads you to these truths? If not, then there are other ways to know truth.
The recipient with alternate beliefs would believe that his alternate beliefs are true (which presumably don't involve his soul shriveling) and the Christian's are false; why would he take offence at a claim he knows is untrue? He would do better to persuade the Christian that he is wrong.
Secondly, Is there any truth claim that's not divisive and exclusive? By it's nature, a truth claim says the world is one particular way and not some other way.
Nope, and don't plan on it. But when you divorce God from the process of creation then you deny His sovereignty over it. And my point still stands: There is a stark contrast between an evolutionary model that contains God and one that does not.
I would like to ask what "solid" means.
I also think that "a few" scholars verifying whatever it is that makes christianity "solid" is a few to little.
The scope of evidence is really key to supporting any idea, and again if only "a few' people are using 1 or 2 books to support the Christian hypothesis then it is not a very sound one.
At exactly 5:50, pretend skepticism opens and religious apologetic begins. Might watch a bit more to see if it goes any further then this..but not a good start.
I guess an athiest doesn't understand how people can develop an emotional relationship with men they have never met like Mohammad and Jesus. It's almost as if this love for these icons is so abstract that thinking about it in a logical manner is almost impossible.
It's not really that hard to tell who He was. History books are pretty helpful resources for that :) And it was actually Jesus who started Christianity not Paul. Also, I would love to talk to someone who would say he fact that Jeses was a jew was "lost with the spin that Paul puts on Christianity". I will not question your education; only your resources. I'm encouraged that you are at least seeking answers. otherwise, why would you be watching this clip?
2 things:
1) one doesn't go to hell *because* one doesn't believe; that doesn't clearly present the actual circumstance. One goes to hell for committing moral crimes. If you don't do anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. But if you're guilty, you pay for your crimes unless you've been pardoned.
2) If I went to a doctor who told me I had cancer, would it make sense to say, "How arrogant and intolerance!" and walk away? At times we don't like to hear the truth, but it's true nonetheless.
I believe that ‘hell’ (Hebrew, ‘sheol’, Greek, ‘hades’) is not a future place of torment, it is the present condition of spiritual darkness and ignorance.
However, ‘Gehenna’ is an actual physical location, it is the valley of Hinnom, which was the town rubbish dump of Jerusalem where the carcasses of those killed in the Roman siege of 67-70 AD were summarily disposed of - as prophesied by Jesus. This marked the end of the age of the nation of Israel as the chosen nation before God. Gehenna is not the consignment to an eternal state of banishment/torture/annihilation for anyone.
There is none good not one.everyone has alot of sins and a single person cannot dwell in the same place as a Holy God..the creator..thatswhyhe sent his perfect son to cover up your sins..this keller seems like a psycogist..Jesus said we must come to him Asa little child..have childlike faith
In 2012, I suffered a brain aneurism that put me into a coma for 4 weeks. When I regained consciousness, I was told that I said about my wife of 17 years, "I'm not sure who she is, but I think I like her a lot." (And I have no recollection of ever saying this!!!) I am now on medical leave doing lots of speech therapy and occupational and lots and lots of practical jokes. To hear my story, search RUclips for my full name, "Charles Frank Kurtz" to hear my story of faith at St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. Then spread word that miracles STILL happen!!! The fact that I am alive to say that may not seem like much, but to my wife and 2 teenaged kids, it is exceptionally miraculous!!!
+Charlie Kurtz Has nothig to do with a magic man in the sky.
So are you saying that our morality is just instinct?
May I ask which comment?
AmazingGrey:
(1) The Pew Forum paints a more complex picture of global religiosity (look up global resurgence).
In any case, how do we know that humanity is maturing and not just changing? Do you think there's an objective moral standard by which this can be measured?
(2) I'll defer to Keller here. He points out that the non-believer's worldview is just as unknowable, unproven, etc. For example, to claim humanity is maturing appeals to an assumed, but unprovable, objective moral standard.
I'd say exclusive and fundamental. Pretty much the same way Jesus was.
"I hope that's the case but reading on the bible, it says otherwise"
frankie, I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Bible *does* teach this: people are condemned for wrong behavior, not wrong belief (see Revelations ch. 20 or James ch. 2, Matthew chs 5 & 12).
God only punishes the guilty. The problem is, we are all guilty. That's what Jesus being the "Savior" is about. The name implies one is "saved from" something. And in fact, Jesus saves one from the consequences of one's own wrongdoing.
The attonement of the cross is the only thing that matters.
@nagopaleen
Historical evidence coupled with logic?
The easy answer why undeniable proof of God does not exist is that such evidence would destroy free will. If such proof existed - say, if He in His Blinding Magnificence showed up on the streets of New York one day - then we mere humans would have no choice but to believe. It wouldn't even be belief but fact. We would have no free choice in the matter, and our existence in this imperfect universe would be for naught.
The easy answer why undeniable proof of God does not exist is that such evidence would destroy free will. If such proof existed - say, if He in His Blinding Magnificence showed up on the streets of New York one day - then we mere humans would have no choice but to believe. It wouldn't even be belief but fact. We would have no free choice in the matter, and our existence in this imperfect universe would be for naught.
Not sure what that is - but I'll take it as a compliment :o)
Whoever asked the first question asked the right one! Well done. I wish he'd continued along his own train of thought but the pastor responded so ambiguously and poorly that it was impossible to respond!
@lucasdasilvemaria. i would ask, how many evangelical pastors do you know? because i happen to know many, and out of those that i know there are about the same amount of 'level-headed' pastors as there are level headed secularists that i know. maybe you should interact with evangelicals a little more often ;)
Science and the scientific method are distinct from scientism, which is the philosophical view that only science can produce any truth about the world. I'm persuaded that scientism is false.
Why should there be more , brother ? Millions of people would rather be entertained , and rightfully so . Many of the huge ' Mega Churches ' look more like a pop music concert . IMO it is human nature to want to be amused and feel good . Until we figure out a way to reach more folks , that's the way it will be for sometime to come .
I want to discover truth about the real world. I consider myself a freethinker, with no prior commitments to discredited philosophical views. I look at evidence (scientific or otherwise, such as the facts of history or geography), use critical thinking and reflection, and try to come to the most reasonable explanation for the facts of the world. It's always possible that I'm wrong and I'm open to correction if someone can give me a good argument (i.e., good reasons to believe them).
The Amish Community, ( I have known several Amish personally) as a group of "Christians" is probably living the closest to the doctrines of Jesus, though their dogma to remain in the 18th Century would not be beneficial to society as a whole or theirs, since there are no Amish Scientists or Medical Researchers in their group, that I know of.
They would still have small pox, cholera, and other diseases.
Every person who has a "faith" believes their faith to be true.
Keller is a person.