Reddit reviews The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
We found 4 Reddit comments about The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I'll have a go...
> How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus... While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are....
If there is a God, then he gave you a brain capable of rational thought. Compare the claims of different religions against reality and see which one does the best of describing the world around you.
I suggest giving Christianity another go-- there's a good book called The Reason for God by Tim Keller that would be a decent read. I like it for two reasons, 1. Keller points out that Christianity is a faith where it's okay (and normal) to doubt. If a belief system is true, then it has nothing to fear from honest investigation. Also, 2. it lays out a rational and convincing argument for God.
> How does the physical world reconcile with scripture (genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution)?
Perhaps the bible is not saying what you think it is saying? 'Evolution' is a pretty big and nuanced topic and the Bible is perfectly compatible with most of it. For instance,
Where the Bible draws the line is in regards to the origins of humanity.
Now you can do with this what you will, but do not think that scientific consensus regarding evolution is as meaningful as you might think browsing a website like Reddit. While evolution explains many of the biological anomalies we see in nature, it provides no compelling evidence at all for abiogenesis-- the creation of life. The theory of evolution is built on the incremental changes in DNA that occur as life propogates itself, yet the problem is that life had to have begun somewhere in order for any propogationg to have happened in the first place. As far as I can tell, theories of abiogenesis are not based on empirical science. The best scientists in the world using the best equipment available cannot create life from inanimate molecules-- they can't even create proteins, which are far less complex than DNA or RNA. The best thay have been able to muster is create some amino acids which are the basic building blocks of proteins. Even these results are debated
Sir Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA has written in favor of so called directed pan-spermia, the idea that extraterrestrials seeded our planed with life. Honestly, this is one of the most compelling theories in favor of abiogenesis. This brings me to your comment:
> If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction?
A nobel laureate and noted athiest has literally written papers proposing that a powerful alien seeded life on this planet. Sounds like science fiction to me.
> How can someone who created the universe care about me individually?
If you can grant the existance of an all powerful, all knowing deity, is it really that hard to believe that he would have the ability to know and care for each individual?
----------------------------------------------------------
Just some thoughts, I'm interested in hearing what you think.
I'll put forward three more that I have read several times.
I would highly recommend (perhaps ironically?) Lewis's Mere Christianity which is available to read online.
That book helped me when I was looking into whether Christianity was true or not. That, and Tim Keller's The Reason for God (here's the kindle page).
Keller's book uses a lot of the material from Lewis's, and presents it in a 21^st century context, and answered for me a lot of protests I had against Christianity. I've listed the relevant chapter headings below.
It's really interesting, actually, if you want to research that. I've looked into the New Testament much more than the Old Testament. I used to have a saved comment that I'd post when this topic came up, but I lost the file when my computer died.
I can respond to this, though:
> A story that was developed and passed down until someone actually wrote it down.
Paul was writing his letters earlier than 70-90 CE. 1 Thessalonians is dated to around 52 CE. This would be not long after the crucifixion. Also, the earliest (generally accepted) date I've seen for the gospel accounts is 70 CE. If we assume Jesus was crucified in 30 CE, that's only 40 years later. Eye-witnesses to Jesus' ministry would still be alive.
You might be interested in this thread from /r/AskHistorians. I want to specifically point out this comment because I think it illustrates that we often expect to find more evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels (was Jesus real?) than we do for most other historical texts and figures. There are some other threads in that sub on the topic of Jesus that you might find interesting.
I can also recommend a book to you that touches on this (among other topics). The Reason for God is a good book to start with.