Not sure what to put here yet.
Newsong Foundations class did not encourage rigorous thinking at all. In my opinion a horrible introduction to religion/thinking and a nice brainwashing session leaving you feeling guilty for not following Christ 100%. newsongfoundations.pdf
Old agape videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/jtbeast/videos
Current AMC videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhglliP9MBw
Living With The Moons: Allen and Ayaka Lu interview talking about Pastor Andy, etc.
Churchrater.com articles on Archive.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20150218042553/http://churchrater.com/churches/agape-mission-church
Why is it so bad if “there was more evidence”? More people would believe, no?
Keller wants to counter the claim that you must give up on rationality to believe in Christianity/religion. In fact, you adopt a set of beliefs when you believe either secularism or Christianity.
We can't really know anything for sure. This is what Glenn calls solipsism.
So Keller's later point is we can't prove whether there is a God or not. Nor can we prove that the natural world is all there is! Ok, true. What's the point? Therefore there is room for God. Ok, sure
A confusing one-page summary, but makes some good points.
Keller claims it was from the Bible.
So what that it appeals to me today? I want the truth! I want to know reality!
“If there is no transcendent reality beyond this life, then there is no value or meaning for anything”
“Man descended from apes, therefore we should love our neighbor”
Often people assume Christian ideas and try to fit them into their other beliefs without justificaiton. Because they believe it to be right.
Keller's point isn't that Christianity is absolutely better to naturalism from this perspective, but rather that naturalism isn't so “truth-based” after all.
Early main point is that a naturalist can't escape the ultimate meaningless-ness of the universe. You can ignore it and make up meaning for yourself, but it is lacking in facing “the truth”.
Also, without ultimate meaning, or by saying “everyone defines his or her own meaning” then how can you disagree about something someone else chooses to do? Well, you can do anything except harm. What is harm, and how can it be derived objectively?
So therefore discovered meaning is better than created meaning. It's objective! It's actually true!
For religious people, suffering on Earth can bring you closer to God. However, except when God is causing the suffering?
Original sin. Why is
Older people tend to be more cynical because it's hard not to become that way!
You need to eat the elephant one bite at a time.
Pretty good summary from RationalWiki
The bible seems to describe a long-suffering place called hell that anyone that doesn't believe in Jesus for saving them will go to. (including
Keller basically says FIRE of Hell isn't literal, rather it's the misery and self-loathing you experience as a result of making yourself God instead of relying on God. In other words, Hell is your ego and your false self whether that's your anger, lust, bad habits, lifestyle etc. Then he points to CS Lewis who says We choose this “Hell” ourselves. OK, I like that and it makes me feel a lot better….for about 30 seconds until my brain starts saying “But what about all those places in the Bible that describes Hell as a place of Fire and torment and gnashing of teeth?” What about all the Traditional teachings about Hell as a literal place through 2000 years of church history? What if it's not just allegorical? What if CS Lewis's idea was just his theory or hypothesis or rationalization? Keller's brain might be satisfied with a Lewis Bible interpretation, but my brain can't ignore the dozens of Hell warnings in the Bible. How does Keller know when the Bible is speaking literally and when it's speaking allegorically?
Why don't I want to believe in God?
Mr. Domes recommends When Critics Ask, When Skeptics Ask, and Letters from a Skeptic. Amazon reviews say they don't tackle the hard questions, and in Letters from a Skeptic, Boyd seems to give “answers” but they are more potential “explanations” that don't acknowledge the difficulty of the issue for Christianity
Christian Boyd recommends First Things and probably stuff by Peter Kreeft.
Gives a great intro as to the painful existence that the God of the Universe created, which Lewis originally used to justify his athiesm.
However, it's not that simple. After some stuff in the middle I skipped over b/c it was pretty dense, he says there are 4 levels to belief in a traditional Jewish/Christian/Muslim God.
Do I disobey this moral law that I believe to be true? (sin)
If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?
A reason for believing Christianity is that it does not “make sense” and is not super orderly/symmetric, just like the world around us isn't that way…it's a bit odd too.
COUNTER-EXAMPLE?? (Stephen Fry at Big Think, who incidentally, don't think very big in my opinion)