Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • >> SON: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for coming out to Authors at Google. My name is

  • Eugene Son. And before we begin, I’d like to extend a special thank you to everyone

  • who made this possible. A lot of work goes into setting this up so I really appreciate

  • that. It is my pleasure to bring to Google Dr. Tim Keller. For those of you who don’t

  • know his background, he was raised in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania; educated at Bucknell

  • University, attended Gordon-Conwell and Westminster Theological Seminary. In 1989, Dr. Keller

  • founded Redeemer Presbyterian Church located in Manhattan. Today, he’s got a congregation

  • of over 5,000 people. He has also helped start over a hundred other churches worldwide. Last

  • night, Dr. Keller was at UC Berkeley promoting his new book, The Reason for God: Belief in

  • an Age of Skepticism. And he addresses a wide audience whether they’d be agnostics, atheists,

  • believers in mind, and he tackles some really difficult issues such as: Why is there suffering

  • in this world? How can a loving god send people to hell? How can there be one right religion

  • while all the others are wrong?” So with that being said, I think were going to

  • have a great conversation. Were going to be having a Q and A session afterwards. Please

  • use the mike to my left and well be taking questions from there. And without further

  • ado, I’d like to introduce Dr. Tim Keller. >> KELLER: Thank you. I’m going to stay

  • here. Thank you. Though I have not--thank you, Eugene. I don’t have any idea why any

  • of you would know anything about my background. Eugene said, if--for those of you who don’t

  • know my background, I think that had to be all of you. I mean, why would anybody know

  • it? Even my children don’t really know it. So I want to talk to you about the reason--the

  • reasoning behind belief in God, or the reasoning the leads to belief in God. I am not--I can’t

  • possibly cover it in say 25, 30 minutes. My conscience is clear because there is the book.

  • In other words, what I say to you here is going to be sketchy. If anything I say really

  • engages you, I won’t be--I won’t feel guilty because I can always say, read the

  • rest of it in the book. I certainly can’t really give good answers to this question

  • in a talk, but I think I--I think I addressed it a lot better in the book were I had a little

  • bit more time. But the question is: What is the reasoning that leads to belief in God?

  • And I'd like to deal with that in the three headings: Why the reasons for God are important,

  • how the reasons for God work, and what the reasons for God are. Okay? First, why the

  • reasons for God are important; why should you even be here? In fact I don’t know why

  • youre here, but I’ll tell you why you ought to be here, okay? If you have a kind

  • of sound, firm skepticism, and you really don’t believe in God, you really need to

  • know this, what I’m about to tell you, and here’s the reason why: When I was your age--I’m

  • looking out there--when I was your age, which is a long time ago, everybody knew that the

  • more technologically advanced the society got, the less religious they'd get. That’s

  • what everybody thought they knew. And the more economically developed, the more educated

  • people got, the more religion was going to sort of thin out and the idea of a god and

  • truth and miracles was going to sort of die out. Not--hardly anybody believes that anymore

  • because, really, that’s not what's happening. Instead, robust, orthodox faith in God has

  • gotten stronger in the world. It has gotten stronger in America. Secular thought has also

  • increased, so we have a more polarized society now. But, you know, last week, the Pew Foundation

  • took out, sent out its latest survey of the religious life of people in America and now

  • evangelical Pentecostals is largest single category, bigger than mainline Protestants,

  • bigger than Catholics. That would never--I can’t imagine that 30 years ago. Meanwhile,

  • in the rest of the world, to keep some things in mind, Africa had gone from 9% to 55% Christian

  • in the last hundred years. Korea went from about 1% to 40% Christian in the hundred years

  • while Korea was getting more technologically advanced. The same thing has basically happened

  • for China. There are more Christians in China now than there are on America, and this has

  • been happening even as science has advanced. So the old idea that somehow orthodox religion

  • is sort of going to go away, no. It isn’t. It’s going to be here, which means the only

  • way were going to get along is we got to be able to get sympathetically into one other's

  • shoes. So if you don’t believe in God, you need to--you need to try to understand why

  • anybody does or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society. You know,

  • the new atheist books, Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchens and company, when they say religion is bad

  • in those books, that’s not a new thesis. A lot of people have been saying that for

  • a long time. What is kind of new about the books is they don’t just say religion is

  • bad, they say respect for religion is bad. And if you counsel one section of your population

  • to belittle and disdain and do nothing, you know, shows no respect for the beliefs of

  • this group of people, beliefs that give them great joy and meaning in life. If you counsel

  • one group of people to despise and do nothing to try to understand this group of people,

  • that is a recipe for social disaster if anybody actually takes the advice. Now, if you are

  • a believer in God, you need to know the reasons for God, and here’s the reasons why. Doubt.

  • Youve got doubts. Don’t tell me you don’t. I know you may come from a church that says,

  • oh, no, doubt, we don't doubt, we believe. Well, if you don’t deal with your own doubts

  • and say, okay, in light of this doubt, why do I believe? You know, why do I believe Christianity?

  • Why do I believe in God, or whatever? If you don’t let your doubts drive you to ask those

  • questions, your faith will never get strong. Doubts, dealing with doubts honestly is the

  • best possible way to develop a faith that can last in the face of anything. So you need

  • to look at the reasoning for God if youre a believer in God. You need to look at the

  • reasoning for God if youre not a believer in God. And, actually, if you--but most of

  • the people that I know in this country, at least, really are kind of ambivalent. They--your

  • relationship with belief in God is a really weird one. Sometimes, you do; sometimes, you

  • don’t. Sometimes, you do more; sometimes, you do less. And you particularly need to

  • hear this. Second point, how do the reasons for God work? Important. There are three basic

  • kinds of reasons that all people who believe believe and for which all people who disbelieve

  • disbelieve. If you disbelieve in God or you believe in God, it’s because of all three

  • of these kinds of reasons. The first kind are intellectual reasons. In other words,

  • you read the arguments for the existence of God or you read the objections to God or Christianity,

  • we'll say--and I’m speaking as a Christian. That’s why whenever I go into a particular

  • religion, I'm always going to think of Christianity here. And if you think the arguments are compelling,

  • you believe. If you think the arguments don’t--aren’t compelling, you don’t believe. So there’s

  • the intellectual; you might call reasoning proper. Secondly, though, you have personal

  • reasons. Nobody believes in God or disbelieves strictly for intellectual rational reasons.

  • There’s always personal reasons. And here’s what’s interesting. Some people have horrible

  • bad experiences, tragedies and difficulties, and disappointments. And some people interpret

  • that as meaning I really need God in my life, I need something to help me get through this.

  • And other people have the very same experiences and they interpret this meaning, I don’t

  • need a god who lets stuff like this happen. Other people get very successful. For example,

  • they come to work for Google and theyre happy, and, like, the toilet seats are heated.

  • How would I know that? And--somebody told me; I didn’t believe them. So youre happy;

  • things are doing well in life. So some people interpret success in life this way: They say,

  • this means I don’t really need God. And other people interpret success in life as

  • saying, you know, I’m happy--I’m successful and I’m still empty. So there’s always

  • interpreted experience, interpreted personal experiences, a set of reasons why some people

  • believe in God or not, intellectual reasons why some people believe in God or not; and,

  • lastly, there’s social reasons. Now, there’s a whole field of--the whole discipline called

  • the sociology of knowledge. And the sociology of knowledge says that basically you tend

  • to find plausible, most plausible, the beliefs of people that you want to be--you want them

  • to like you, or the people that you need and people that you're dependent on, people who

  • are in the community youre in or want to be part of--their beliefs tend to be more

  • plausible than the beliefs of people who are in communities you don’t like or aren’t

  • interested in and don’t want to be part of. So, to a great degree, you believe what

  • you believe because of the social support, and I think most of us have to be honest about

  • this. If you once believed in God and kind of lost your belief, to some degree, that

  • happened because a lot of the people that you wanted to like you were also being skeptical

  • and sophisticated and making jokes about it. Or if you move from belief, or pardon me,

  • non-belief to robust belief in God, very often, it’s because youve found a circle of

  • people that you really like and admire and you can identify with and you’d like to

  • be liked, and they believed. But what you can’t do is reduce belief or non-belief

  • to just one of those three, and people always do it. It’s always all three. I'm going

  • to show you what I mean. Very often, secular, non-believing people, non-believing in god,

  • will say to me, "Yet, Christian minister, you think you got the truth, you think Christianity

  • is the truth. If you were born in Madagascar, you wouldn’t even be a Christian." Okay.

  • So I sat down and I said, "What is this? What is the point of this?" And here’s what he’s

  • saying: He’s saying, "My understanding of God is based on rationality. I’ve thought

  • it out. But your belief is socially and culturally constructed, totally. Youre only a Christian

  • because you were raised here, okay, not Madagascar." But, see, what’s the comeback? The comeback

  • is--here’s a person that says, "I’m a secular person who believes that religion

  • is, you know, all religions are relative, and youre this Christian. If you were born

  • in Madagascar, you wouldn’t be a Christian." And the comeback is, yet, if you were born

  • in Madagascar, you wouldn’t be a secular relativist. Does that mean that your position

  • is all socially constructed? "Oh, no, no." Yes and no. To some degree, the reason he

  • doesn’t believe is because his belief was somewhat, somehow socially supported but it’s

  • not totally. It’s also reason. It’s all three. It’s absolutely wrong. It’s disdainful.

  • It’s almost exploitative to say, "My position is based only on reasoning and your position

  • is based on, you know, cultural and personal issues." That’s not true. And by the way,

  • if youre a Christian, you must never think that it’s all a matter of reason. If youre

  • a Christian, you believe that the human being, we as human beings are made in the image of

  • God, all of us, not just our reason, our emotion, you know, our social aspect, our emotional

  • aspect, our intellectual aspect. Were all in the image of God, and all those things

  • have to play a role on belief. Now, lastly, but this, you know, the main event. What are

  • the reasons for God? And I would say that there’s a lot of ways of stacking this,

  • but I would like to suggest to you that, by and large, reasoning ends with belief in God,

  • moves up a ladder, and I’m going to suggest three rungs. Now, I’m not saying that everybody

  • actually who comes to believe in God moves along the ladder in exactly these ways. But

  • I would say there’s a lot of ways of stacking all of the things that happen. Here’s how

  • I’m going to do it. I think, at least, it's a way of making sense of it. The first rung

  • of the ladder is you come to see that disbelief in God takes as much faith as belief in God.

  • That’s the first rung. It takes as much faith to disbelieve in God as to believe.

  • That’s the first rung. The second rung is it takes more of a leap of faith, when you

  • come to see, it takes more of a leap of faith in the dark to disbelieve in God than to believe

  • in God. And the third rung of the ladder is you come to realize that whereas you can reason

  • to a point of probability, it takes personal commitment to get to certainty. And if you

  • move up those three rungs, you believe in God. Let me show how that works. The first

  • rung--and, by the way, there’s a lot in here so that’s why I feel like if anything

  • I’m saying intrigues you at all, I suggest get the book. And I’m really saying that

  • not as an author who's trying to sell books but as a minister who’s trying to get a

  • message across. You can believe that or not. You can be cynical or not. And I hope I mean

  • right. I mean, I hope that’s really what I--I hope that’s my motive. I think it is.

  • So if you can possibly get the book because I have a feeling what I’m going to say in

  • the next 15 minutes is too short. Do so. Now, the first rung is this: It takes more--it

  • takes as much faith, excuse me, to believe, to disbelieve in God as to believe. How do

  • I back that up? Well, here’s how: All of the arguments that purport to prove there

  • is no god fall flat. See, all the arguments that youve ever heard that say, "There

  • can’t be a god or even Christianity can’t be true," if any of those stood up, they need

  • to be say, "Christianity can’t be true. God can’t be real." But if none of them

  • stand up, if there’s no way to prove there is no God, and therefore, there is a god,

  • then to believe that there’s no God is an act of faith. Are you following me? Let me

  • show you some of the arguments. Here are the arguments that are usually brought up. They

  • say, "This is why there really couldn’t be a god." The first one, the main one, is

  • the argument from evil and suffering. And that argument goes like this: Look at all

  • the senseless, pointless evil in the world. Okay? See it? Now, given that senseless, pointless

  • evil, there may be a god who’s good but not powerful enough to stop it, or there may

  • be a god who is all powerful enough but not good enough to want to stop it. But given

  • evil and suffering in the world, all that pointless, senseless evil and suffering, there

  • can’t be an all-good and all-powerful god or he would stop it; and, therefore, the all-good,

  • all-powerful traditional god in the Bible can’t exist. David Hume, Discourses on Natural

  • Religion, 18th century. It doesn’t work. There’s a guy named William Osteen who is

  • one of the leading philosophers today from Syracuse University who recently wrote: The

  • effort to demonstrate that evil disproves God is now acknowledge on almost all sides

  • in philosophy as completely bankrupt. Now, here’s what he means by this. And I shudder

  • to say this to you because if any of you actually are going through some real suffering, it’s

  • not a philosophical issue for you; it’s a personal issue. But I would just hope that

  • you don’t see this as cold comfort. For many people, it’s philosophical; and people

  • say, "How could you believe in a god with all these senseless, pointless evil?" Here’s

  • what the philosophers have been saying for the last 20 years. This is the reason why

  • there hasn’t been a major philosophical work trying to disprove the existence of God

  • on the basis of evil and suffering since 1982. Because as William Osteen says, in the philosophical

  • world, it’s just not washing, and here’s why: When you say there can’t be a god because

  • of all the senseless, pointless evil out there, here’s the question: How do you know it’s

  • senseless? How do you know there’s no good reason for it? The only answer is, "Well,

  • I can’t think of any good reason." Oh, okay. So here’s your premise. Because I can’t

  • think of any good reason why God would allow evil and suffering to continue, therefore,

  • there can’t be any. No, why would that be? And that’s the reason why if youve got

  • a god big and powerful enough to be mad at for evil and suffering, and at the very same

  • moment, youve got a god big and powerful enough to have reasons for allowing it to

  • continue that you can’t think of. You can’t have it both ways. And that’s the reason

  • why in the philosophical circles, the argument that says, "We can disprove God with evil

  • and suffering has fallen flat." And, by the way, if there’s anybody saying, "It’s

  • not a philosophical thing for me; it’s a personal thing--I have this horrible stuff

  • in my life and that’s the reason why I can’t believe in God"; but I told you a minute ago,

  • there are plenty of people who had everything and had every bit as much suffering as you,

  • and theyve let that turn them toward God. So personal suffering, experiences of suffering,

  • the philosophical question of suffering doesn’t disprove the existence of God. It doesn’t

  • work. Okay. Well, what about this? This is what I would call the Hitchensargument

  • against the reality of God. I know he was here at one point, right? And this argument

  • goes like this: If there really was a god, how could his believers have done so much

  • evil in the history of the world? If there really is a god, why is it that so much of

  • the violence and oppression and injustice in history, why is it have been perpetrated

  • by the people who believe in God, in the name of God? See, that’s the argument. But here’s

  • the problem with that argument. It’s a pretty big one. There must be something in the human

  • heart that is so prone to violence and oppression that it can actually twist any world view,

  • any philosophy, any state of belief which regard to God into violence. So, for example,

  • Buddhism and Shinto, out of that soil grew the Japanese militarism of the World War II,

  • out of Christian soil grows everything from the Crusades in the 11th and 12th century

  • down to today, people shooting abortion doctors. Out of Islam comes global terrorism. But out

  • of atheism--is that the third time I've done that or the second time? It’s going to be

  • on the Internet.

  • Look at atheism, look at Stalin, look at Cambodia, look at the Khmer Rouge. There’s a guy named

  • Milosz, who’s the Polish--famous Polish poet, and he has a fascinating little essay

  • called, “The Discreet Charms of Nihilism.” Now, there’s a title for you, The Discreet

  • Charms of Nihilism. And, in it, he pointed something out. He says, “If you believe

  • there’s a god, it’s fairly easy to twist that belief into violence because you can

  • say, 'I have the truth, you don’t. I’m a better person, you are an inferior kind

  • of person.' But, he says--he says, “If you don’t believe in God,” he says, “I’ve

  • seen that be a warrant for violence. I’ve seen that be fruitful soil or I’ve seen

  • that twisted.” You know why? He says, “If youre an atheist and you can say if I can

  • get away with something in this life, I get away with it.” If I can kill this people

  • over here and I can get away with it, there is no Judgment Day, there is no punishment

  • in the after life." He said that, “I’ve seen that.” Now, you know what that means?

  • I don’t want as a Christian, just because some people have twisted Christianity into

  • a warrant for violence, I don’t want to say to you, if youre an Atheist, well,

  • look at what Czeslaw Milosz says. Look at what he says. He says, “He has seen atheism

  • twisted into violence.” So what--you can twist anything into violence, non-belief and

  • belief. And you know what this means, it’s a tie. It’s not--it does not disapprove

  • God; it doesn’t just prove Atheism. I’m not going to say, “Oh, atheism is stupid,

  • look at that, look at Stalin"; I don’t want you to say, look at Christianity, it's stupid,

  • look at the Crusades.” Let’s just admit it’s a tie. And let's admit it doesn’t

  • really argue against or for God. It certainly doesn’t disprove God. Let me give you a

  • third--yeah, I have for third--a third argument against the existence of God. Well, no, I’ll

  • give you--I'll give this one. A third argument is not that you can’t--there can’t be

  • a god. There’s an argument I would call you can’t know there’s a god. There’s

  • a lot of folks who would say, look, I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but nobody

  • can know, nobody can know. Lesslie Newbigin has a great passage in one of his books--he's

  • a British scholar--in which he says here’s how agnostics likes to argue, they--they use

  • the illustration of the elephant and the blind man. Have you heard that illustration? Here

  • are six blind men. They come upon an elephant. And everyone grabs the elephant at a different

  • place. And one blind man is holding on to the trunk and says, “Oh, elephants are kind

  • of long and flexible.” And another guy has hold of the leg and says, “That’s not

  • true at all. Elephants are kind of thick and stiff and stumpy.” And the illustration

  • goes that every one of the blind men thinks they kind of know the whole elephant, but

  • every one on the blind men basically only, in a sense, can sense part of the truth and

  • nobody can sense the whole truth. And so, that’s like the religions of the world.

  • Every religion has a little bit of wisdom, but the fact is nobody has the truth. Nobody

  • can see the whole picture. Nobody can say, “I know God truly.” And Lesslie Newbigin

  • has a great spot where he talks about--he says it like this, he says, this is a quote,

  • In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant, so often quoted in the interest

  • of religious agnosticism, the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story

  • is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind, but can see what the blind

  • men are unable to grasp; that is the full reality of the elephant. And only the one

  • who sees the whole elephant can know that all the blind men are blind.” Do you see

  • what he’s saying? The only way you could know that all the blind men only sense part

  • of the elephant is if you think youre not blind. You'd only tell the story from the

  • standpoint of someone who is not blind. And so, he comes back and he says, “What this

  • means then is that there is an appearance of humility and a protestation that the truth

  • is much greater than anyone of us can grasp. But if this is used to invalidate all claims

  • to discern the truth, it is in fact an arrogant claim with the kind of knowledge which is

  • superior that you have just said, no religion has," you follow that? To say, I don’t know

  • which religion is true is an act of humility. To say, none of the religions have the truth.

  • No one can be sure there's a god is actually to assume you have the kind of knowledge,

  • you just said no other person, no other religion has; how dare you? See, it’s a kind of arrogant

  • thing to say nobody can know the truth because it’s a universal truth claim. Nobody can

  • make universal truth claims. That is a universal truth claim. Nobody can see the whole truth.

  • You couldn’t know that unless you think you see the whole truth. And, therefore, youre

  • doing the very thing you say religious people shouldn’t say. So does that disprove god

  • now? Does that even prove that you can’t know God? Of course not, you undermine yourself.

  • But, lastly, the main thing I’ve seen people say is say, look, there can’t be a god and

  • here’s what they say. Until you prove there’s a god, until you show me rational, empirical

  • proof, I don’t have to believe in God. And, therefore, until you prove there’s a god,

  • there is no god. Well, here’s a problem, that’s a big leap for faith. You say, what

  • do you mean it's a big leap of faith? Sure, if you have a creator god, here’s a god

  • who created the universe, what makes you so sure that this god who is not inside the universe,

  • I mean, he’s not on a being inside the universe, wholly inside; he's not like an island in

  • the Pacific. There’s no particular reason why you should believe in some island in the

  • Pacific unless somebody proves it to you; or a chemical compound, there's no reason

  • to believe this chemical compound exists unless somebody proves it to you. But why should

  • you assume that God would actually be someone or something so inside the world that He could

  • be provable? It may be right, and you may be wrong. But you have to admit it, it's a

  • leap of faith. You're actually assuming something about the nature of God in order to say He

  • doesn’t exist. C.S. Lewis writes an interesting article in 1961. Some of you might know that

  • the Russians were the first country to send somebody into space, Yuri Gagarin. And he

  • came back and a few months later, the premier of Russia--Soviet Union Khrushchev was giving

  • a speech and talking about atheism and he actually said, “We sent somebody to heaven,

  • and he came back and he said he didn’t see God anywhere.” And C.S. Lewis wrote an article

  • that said interestingly enough, he said, “If there is a god who created the world and created

  • us, you couldn’t--well, you don't relate to God the way a person in a first storey

  • relates to a man in the second storey. Rather, you would relate to God the way Hamlet relates

  • to Shakespeare.” See, if Hamlet wants to prove there's a Shakespeare, he’s not going

  • to be able to do that in a lab nor is he going to be able to find Shakespeare by going up

  • into the top of the, you know, the stage, you know. The only reason he knows anything

  • about Shakespeare is that Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play. And

  • what would mean is if there is a creator god, you probably--there should be evidence, but

  • the idea that you can’t believe in Him until someone proves Him is actually an assumption

  • of faith leap about the existence of the nature of God before you even are willing to admit,

  • you know, that He’s there. And besides that, you can’t prove anything hardly, you know

  • that. Did you take Philosophy 101? I can’t prove to you that I’m not a butterfly dreaming

  • I’m a man. And there are not--there are no non-circular arguments for the proposition

  • that your memories work. The world might have been here just five months or minutes ago,

  • it could have come into existence five minutes ago and your memories think as far as back

  • to that, how can you prove otherwise? So the philosophers know that you can’t prove anything.

  • And guess what? You can’t prove any of your moral convictions. Human beings are valuable.

  • You know, people have rights. You can’t prove that. Nope. That’s not self-evident.

  • It maybe is to all your friends, but it’s not self-evident to all the people in the

  • world. It's not something you can prove. You can only prove anything and yet you live your

  • life on the basis of that. So why should you say to God, if youre there, you prove yourself

  • to me or you have no response--I have no responsibility to you. That may be true; it may not be true

  • but it’s a leap of faith. Now, here’s where we've come, this is not only the first

  • rung of the ladder and you say, oh, my gosh. Well, like I said, I’m pointing you to the

  • book. So I can’t give you everything that I’d like to give you, but here’s where

  • we are. If you can’t prove that there is no God, that means there may be a god and

  • if you in this room, any of you are living as if there is no God, you need to admit that

  • that’s a risk, that that’s an act of faith, that youre taking your life into your hands,

  • right? And it's as much an act of faith a personal commitment an act of faith as a person

  • who gives him or herself to God. Now, if you don’t even see that, then youre not on

  • the first rung of belief--of reasoning toward belief in God. If you do see that even for

  • the first time, youve hit rung one. Rung two, now, rung two, I’m going to be brief

  • about. And the reason I’m going to be brief about is because it actually takes more time

  • to demonstrate than rung one. Rung two is this: It takes more of a leap of faith to

  • disbelieve in God than to believe in God, because God makes more sense of the things

  • you see out there in the world than if there is no God. Let me give you only two examples,

  • only two. One of them is this. Okay. One of them is the fine-tuning of the universe and

  • one of them is human rights, okay? Fine-tuning of the universe, you probably heard about

  • this. There’s a man named Francis Collins who's a real scientist; I’m not. And he

  • does a good job of talking about this and the--the fine-tuning of the universe is the

  • fact that the fundamental regularities and constants of physics, the speed of light,

  • gravitational constants, strength and weakness of nuclear forces, all those things have to

  • be calibrated within a, you know, a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a degree

  • and they all have to agree for organic life to have grown and, therefore, it looks like

  • this world is perfectly chosen for our human life. So what--the argument goes like this.

  • The argument is: What are the chances of this happening by accident? Very, very--one in

  • a trillion that we just happen to be, so maybe this is an evidence for the existence God.

  • Now, a guy like Richard Dawkins, very rightly says, that is not proof and here’s the reason

  • it’s not proof. He says, "What if at the Big Bang, there were a million parallel universes,

  • a billion, a trillion, you know, infinite number of parallel universe all created at

  • once, and we just happen to be in the one. Okay, so what? Maybe it was a one in a trillionth

  • chance but here it is, were here. That doesn’t prove God and he’s right. Except

  • there’s--Alvin Plantinga is a Christian philosopher at Notre Dame that has a little

  • bit of a comeback that’s kind of funny. He says imagine yourself at a poker game,

  • and youre sitting around at the poker game, and one man, the man who’s dealing deals

  • himself 20 straight hands of four aces, 20 straight hands. Okay, now, on the last time,

  • he deals himself, four aces. Everybody gets up. And youre just ready to pound him and

  • here’s what he says, "Look," he says. "I know it looks suspicious, but what if there’s

  • an infinite succession of universes so that for any possible distribution of possible

  • poker hands, there is a universe in which the possibility is realized. We just happen

  • to find ourselves in one where I always deal myself four aces without cheating. Couldn’t

  • that be the case? You can’t prove that I’m cheating." And the answer is you're probably

  • going to slug him anyway because you would say, of course, you can’t prove it but what

  • are the chances? It’s not like, you know, nobody lives their life like that. In other

  • words, though the fine-tuning of the universe does not prove the existence of God, if there

  • is a god, it makes sense. If there’s not a god, it’s a long shot. It doesn’t prove

  • the existence of God. All it proves is if there is a god, what you see there makes more

  • sense. Let me give you only one other example, only one, human Rights. I'll give you a good

  • example of this. Alan Dershowitz in his book Shouting Fire has a chapter on where the human

  • rights come from, and he says there’s basically four possibilities. Now human rights is the

  • belief that human beings are so worthwhile that regardless of age, regardless of ethnicity,

  • regardless of gender, regardless of social status, regardless of how much wealth you

  • have, every human being is of great worth and has certain rights that can’t be exploited

  • or trampled upon. Now, the question comes: Why should we believe that? The first possibility,

  • Alan Dershowitz says, is that we believe that God created human beings and therefore theyre

  • sacred. Theyre made in the image of God, et cetera. And Alan said--Alan Dershowitz

  • says but a lot of us don’t believe in God so we don’t want to go there. Fine. Point

  • two. The second possibility is maybe we--we find this in nature. If we look out in nature,

  • if we just look out nature, do we just see that somehow human beings, individuals are

  • valuable? "No," he says, because all you see out there is the strong eating the weak. That's

  • how every one of you got here--called evolution. Annie Dillard who wrote Pilgrim at Tinker

  • Creek and won a Pulitzer Prize for it some years ago was living by a creek bed in Virginia,

  • and she wanted to get close to nature but the more she saw how nature was red and tooth

  • and claw, and the strong are eating the weak--she saw a water bug stinging a toad or a frog

  • and then suck out its brain and she saw this and she began to realize, "Wait a minute.

  • Everything about nature contradicts everything I feel about what is right and wrong." And

  • she says, "Evolution loves death more than it loves you and me or anyone. I had thought

  • to live by the side of the creek in order to shape my life to its free flow, but I seem

  • to have reached the point where I must draw the line. I must part ways with the only world

  • I know. Look, Cock Robin may die the most gruesome of slow deaths and nature is no less

  • pleased. The sun comes up, the creek rolls on, the survivors still sing, but I cannot

  • feel that way about your death nor you about mine or either of us about the robins. We

  • value the individual supremely. Nature values the individual not a wit. It looks as if I

  • might have to reject this creek life unless I want to be utterly brutalized. Either this

  • world, nature, is a monster or I am a freak because I believe that the strong should not

  • eat the weak but everything in nature says it should. Either this world is my mother,

  • my mother is a monster, or I myself is a freak. Let’s consider the former possibility, the

  • world is a monster. There’s not a people in the world that behaves as bad as praying

  • mantises. But wait, you say, there’s no right or wrong in nature. Right and wrong

  • is a human concept. Precisely, we are model creatures in a universe that is running on

  • chance and death careening blindly from nowhere to nowhere which somehow produced wonderful

  • us. This world runs on chance and death and power, but I cherish life and the rights of

  • the weak versus the strong. So I crawled by chance out of a sea of amino acids through

  • evolution and now I twirl around and shake my fist at that sea and I cry, 'Shame!' We

  • little blobs of soft tissue crawling around on this one planet skin are right and the

  • whole universe is wrong. The world is a monster. Oh, maybe not, let’s consider the alternative.

  • Nature is fine. We are freaks. The frog that the giant water bug sucked had a rush of feeling

  • for about a second before its brain turned to broth. I however have been sapped by very

  • strong feelings about the incident almost daily for years. All right, then, it’s our

  • emotions and values that already amiss. We are freaks. The world is fine. Let us all

  • go have lobotomies to restore us to a natural state. We can leave the library, then go back

  • to creek, lobotomize, and live on its banks as untroubled as any muskrat or reed--you

  • first." Here’s what she's saying, "How could you look at nature and say there’s something

  • wrong with it?" See, to believe in human rights is to say everything else in nature is wrong,

  • everything, because that’s how you got here. The strong eats the weak and now youre

  • saying, "No, it’s wrong." Why would it be wrong? Unless you believe in God or a supernatural

  • standard by which to judge, how can you judge that nature is unnatural? Where did you get

  • your idea by which you could say nature--so you can’t go to nature. No, it’s not,

  • it’s not natural. The third possibility is, okay, we formed human rights ourselves.

  • Legislative majorities create human rights. Theyre not discovered. Theyre not there.

  • Yeah, youre right. Morality is something we create. So we create it. We as a body of

  • a legislative majority, we decide that human rights makes society work better and therefore

  • it’s more practical to believe in human rights so we create human rights. And Dershowitz

  • says that will never work. You know why? What were really saying is genocide is only

  • wrong because we say it is. And therefore if 51 percent want to vote to take away the

  • rights of 49 percent and destroy them, nobody can say, how dare you? Because you say genocide

  • is only wrong because we say so; now, most of us don’t say it’s wrong. He says the

  • whole value of rights, he says a lawyer, he says, the value of rights, is to say to the

  • majority, you have to honor the rights of my client. Human rights are there. Theyre

  • discovered. They can’t be created. Oh, okay, now, wait, they don’t come from nature,

  • we don’t create them, they're there. He says I don’t believe in God; so why do I

  • believe in human rights? And you know what he says in the end? Theyre just there.

  • We don’t know where they come from, we don’t know why they're there, they probably shouldn’t

  • be there; but theyre there. Now, what is he saying? Am I telling you that human rights

  • proves there is a god, no. All I’m trying to say is this: If there is a god, human rights

  • makes sense. If there is no god, human rights don’t make much sense. They don’t make

  • as much sense. You don’t even know where they came from. What is this to say? Only

  • that belief in God makes more sense of life than non-belief, right? Dershowitz is basically

  • saying that. I’ve been planning as just to--and I could give you a long list. So here's

  • my question; I can’t prove God to you. I can only show you thing after thing after

  • thing, issue after issue after issue, if there is a god, it makes sense that that’s there.

  • If there is a god, the idea of justice and injustice and genocide being wrong makes sense.

  • If there is no god, you're really just taking a leap in the dark to say I don’t know why

  • it’s wrong, I just feel it’s wrong. It’s a bigger leap in the dark to believe in human

  • rights if you don’t believe in God than if you do. It’s a bigger leap in the dark

  • to say, somehow, love is significant, human beings are valuable if there is no god than

  • if there is. So why are you doing it? Why is it so hard to believe in God? Probably,

  • personal and social reasons, and maybe some intellectual reasons. Now, this is the last

  • because I do want to take 15 minutes of questions. I just said that once you get through the

  • second rung, you're only to the place of probability. God is more likely to exist. And you say is

  • that as far as you can take me? Well, yes, in a way. I better put this down. I’m sorry.

  • But it doesn’t mean that you can’t be certain. If I was falling off the cliff and

  • I saw a branch taking out of the side of the cliff, let’s just say that branch is strong

  • enough to hold me up. Now, I’m about to fall. If I don’t grab that branch, I’m

  • dead. If I look at that branch and I say, “Oh, I don’t know if it’s going to save

  • me,” but if I grab it, I’m saved. If I look at the branch and I say, “I know that

  • branch can save me,” but I don’t grab it, I’m dead. You see, weak faith in a strong

  • object is infinitely better than strong faith in a weak object because it’s the object

  • of your faith, not the strength of your faith that saves you. And if you get to the place

  • where you think God probably is there, now, it’s time to make a personal commitment.

  • You know what, if you, one of you want to come work for me, I could do all kinds of

  • rational background checks and everything to try to figure out that you're probably

  • the right person for the job. But until I commit to you, until I bite, until I invest

  • in you, until I actually hire you, which is always a risk, I can’t know. But if I personally

  • commit to you, in a year or so, I can know perfectly well, same thing with Jesus, same

  • thing with God. At a certain point, you come to probability and then you have to commit.

  • Do you remember how--and here’s a great thing about Christianity, mind if I put in

  • a plug for my own religion? I’ve been talking about God in general but I’m a minister;

  • can I do that? You know, it’s my job. Remember how I said C.S. Lewis said that if there is

  • a god, the only way you’d know about him is since he's like Shakespeare, he would have

  • to write some information about himself into the play? You know, you can go beyond that

  • if youre an author. Any of you ever see the Peter Wimsey novels or ever see the--they

  • were put on BBC? Dorothy Sayers was one of the first women to ever graduate from Oxford

  • and she was a detective novelist and she wrote a series of novels. Peter Wimsey was this

  • aristocratic detective and he solved mysteries. And halfway through the series, a woman shows

  • up named Harriett Vane. And Harriet Vane was one of the first women who ever graduated

  • from Oxford and she was a writer of detective novels and she falls in love with Peter Wimsey

  • and marries him. Do you know who Harriet Vane is? See, what happened was Dorothy Sayers

  • fell in love with Peter Wimsey. She created him, she created the whole world that he was

  • in and she also saw he was horribly lonely, and she wanted to get into that world and

  • save him. And guess what? She did. She wrote herself in and she married him and they lived

  • happily ever after. Now, you know what the gospel is, every other religion says God is

  • up here and you have believe in him but only in Christianity, he says, God wrote himself

  • into the play. It’s really moving to say, oh, Dorothy Sayers put herself into the world

  • she created and she fell in love with her key character and that’s exactly what God

  • has done, that’s what the gospel is. And, therefore, if personal commitment is the key

  • to certainty, Christianity has a leg up because youve got a watertight, not a watertight

  • argument, you a watertight person, Jesus Christ, against him in the end, I don’t think there

  • can be a good argument. Now, what I’m going to do is walk over here, without knocking

  • anything over and then everybody who wants to ask me questions for the next 15, 20 minutes

  • or so, just come up there and, oh, I’m sorry, I'll move this a little bit. Am I still in

  • the line? Okay, thank you. So thank you for listening. Can this hold me up? I’m a big

  • guy. Okay. Hi. >> Hi. I want to thank you very much for being

  • here today. It’s a fascinating talk. I actually have a hundred questions and it would not

  • be fair for me to ask them so that means I have to go get my hands in the book.

  • >> KELLER: So youre just going to give me, what, 50?

  • >> I’m just going to give you one. The argument from evil and suffering is interesting to

  • me because you say, well, maybe God is permitting it and we just can’t understand why.

  • >> KELLER: Right. >> Well, that may be true but it seems to

  • me that if that’s true, then I don’t understand how you can come to any conclusions about

  • what God would do or wouldn’t do based on his properties. If God is all good and all

  • powerful and still lets babies burn to death in fires...

  • >> KELLER: Uh-hmm. >> Then, maybe he's all good and all powerful

  • and chooses not to save us or chooses not to love us or one specific thing you said

  • is that, for atheists, they're making a leap of faith, theyre taking--theyre risking

  • something. Theyre taking their life in their hands. Well, that’s not just based

  • on a belief in God but a belief in how atheists should act if there’s a god, the consequences

  • for atheists. If he’s going to let babies burn in fires, then maybe he’s going to

  • let atheists prosper, go to heaven and be healthy.

  • >> KELLER: But, see, so by--it sounds like you are assuming then that if babies burn

  • in fires--actually, what youre doing is youre trying to go back and say, there

  • can’t be any way that a loving God could let a baby burn in fire.

  • >> No, I'm not saying that. I’m saying if we conclude that a loving, omnipotent God

  • can let babies burn in fire, then we could conclude that he can let any horrible thing

  • happen or any good thing happen and therefore assuming, for instance, that atheists are

  • going to have to pay in some way, that’s the assumption about hat God will do. But

  • we already know that we can’t understand why God does things and therefore we can't

  • understand what he would do and what he wouldn’t do in any situation.

  • >> KELLER: The difference between--listen, when the Bible says, thou shall not kill,

  • we shouldn’t be sitting around saying, well, what we don’t know what God's will is. There

  • it is. When it comes to guessing why he let certain things happen, that is a completely

  • different category and you really shouldn’t put the two together. Say, for example, how

  • do you know that the baby, if the person grew up would have become an evil person and this

  • is his way of just getting the baby out and staying in heaven forever. You don’t know

  • that. >> And how do you know that the atheist wouldn’t

  • be a better person, a particular atheist wouldn’t be a better person for being an atheist and

  • God wishes him to be an atheist for it? >> KELLER: Why don’t you say--I just said,

  • there’s a difference between what the word--what the Bible says. So the Bible would say...

  • >> Youve made an enormous leap. >> KELLER: Well, yeah, because I didn’t

  • get there. I just talked about God. >> Faith in God.

  • >> KELLER: Yes, youre right. Youre right. Youre right. That’s another talk.

  • >> Okay. >> KELLER: So youre perfectly right in

  • saying, until you, until you, Tim Keller, until you can show me that I need to take

  • the Bible seriously, it’s tough for me to completely swallow what you just said about

  • evil and suffering. Okay. So I have to go there, and I won’t partly because, unless

  • you... >> No.

  • >> KELLER: No, we just don’t have enough time. But, you see, the point is, there’s

  • nothing, for example, in the Bible about why God would let somebody die or child die. There’s

  • a lot of stuff in the Bible saying you have responsibility to respond to me; I’m your

  • creator. So that’s--however, youre absolutely right about the fact that I didn’t establish

  • that so I can’t leverage it. But, good point. Come on.

  • >> Hi, could it be that the derivation of basic human rights comes from our ability

  • to see perspective and take the role of another person and, maybe, that is just a good evolutionary

  • strategy? >> KELLER: Right. What youre saying is,

  • then, human rights just helps you pass your genetic code on. It’s basically a form of

  • selfishness. In other words, you're saying that, that--the trouble with saying that everything

  • comes from evolution, that my--that the feeling that it’s wrong to exploit somebody basically

  • helps me pass my genetic material on, if that’s all you want to say human rights is, I would

  • say then, why can’t I get away with it? In other words, I guess I would say, that

  • doesn’t tell me that human rights are really there. What that tells me is why I feel that

  • theyre there. See, I think Dershowitz--see, Dershowitz actually deals with that a little

  • bit. He says, if you say the reason--so many of us, and most people don’t believe in

  • human rights, okay? But the reason so many of us here believe in human rights is because

  • it’s our next stage of evolution and we feel that theyre there. But that only tells

  • me why I feel that theyre not--that they are there. So I wouldn’t say your argument

  • goes far enough. Okay? Thanks. I think I did a lot better with him than you so. You have

  • a very good point, anyway. I understand what youre saying and I hope I’m not making

  • a short rift of these big deals but I don’t have too much time. Yes, go ahead.

  • >> Dr. Keller, first, I wanted to thank you for joining us today. One of the many interesting

  • points... >> KELLER: Who’s that?

  • >> This is Cornelius. >> KELLER: Cornelius?

  • >> Yeah. >> KELLER: Cool.

  • >> One of the many interesting points you made had to do with the increasing prevalence

  • of orthodox religions in our society. And I was wondering, I read an essay by an economist

  • named Lawrence Anacone. He talks about why strict churches are strong, you know, basically,

  • that he feels that the social advantages of a strict church become increasingly, you know,

  • desirable as the society becomes more wealthy and educated. I was wondering if you had any

  • comments on that. >> KELLER: That sounds a little bit like--no,

  • I don’t know. I haven’t read that. It sounds a little bit like a sociologist named

  • Dean Kelley back in the early ‘70s. He wrote a book calledWhy Conservative Churches

  • Are Growing?” He said the same thing. And, you know, as a Christian believer, I would

  • say that can only be partly right, but I could say that, to some degree, youll find those

  • kinds of churches are pretty attractive when the society is very mobile, and there’s

  • like no community. And it kind of creates--it’s automatic community in a place where no one

  • knows anyone. But the fact is that Christianity grows all over the place. I mean, the--you

  • know, Christianity grew explosively in China, in the rural areas, in the last 50 years where

  • there was no mobility, there was tremendous community and, yet, it’s the same kind of

  • crunchy, robust, orthodox, conservative religion that's grown there as it’s growing in our

  • exurbs right now. So if somebody wants to say, one of the reasons why people go to those

  • churches is it creates community as the world’s becoming, as their societies are becoming

  • more--there’s more detachment and people feel there’s no community, I agree. But

  • you can’t reduce the growth of Christianity to that, that’s all. And thank you for bringing

  • Cornelius up. Youre welcome. He's a sweetheart. Hi.

  • >> Hi, I have a comment and a question. >> KELLER: Sure.

  • >> My comment is, I think youve misunderstood the anthropic principle which characterizes

  • there’s a multitude of universes and we just happen to be in one with fine-tuned constants.

  • >> KELLER: Okay. >> The problem is that fine-tuned constants

  • are required for our existence. And the poker game analogy falls down because 20 hands of

  • four aces in a row are not a requirement to have an observer there to witness the cards

  • being dealt. An equivalent to the poker game analogy would be to say, well, we discovered

  • this nebula in a distant galaxy that happens to make the exact shape of the Ten Commandments

  • written in ancient Hebrew. If you showed me such a nebula, I would be immediately convinced

  • that Christianity or Judaism, at least, was true. But the existence of that nebula does

  • not predicate my existence and that’s why that would convince me so...

  • >> KELLER: Yeah. Listen, I’m not completely convinced about what you just said and I think

  • some of it is subjective. If most--mainly I said, and what you said, we'll probably

  • leave it at that. I mean, it was--I thought, I mean I read Dawkins pretty closely, and

  • I thought Dawkins said that we would be in the only universe that actually is the right

  • universe for our existence. >> Right, because we can’t exist in the

  • other universes. >> KELLER: But he’s still saying--right--but

  • he’s still saying that--yes, I see what you mean, that we just happen to be in this

  • universe and would have to be... >> Well, it’s not so much that we happen

  • to be. It's that the universe that allows for observers has observers and so...

  • >> KELLER: Well, you would say, it just happens that there's one universe that grows human

  • life though. You would agree with that? >> That’s true.

  • >> KELLER: Well, that’s the point of the poker game.

  • >> It still is different; but I'll be running my question because we could argue about it

  • forever. >> KELLER: Okay.

  • >> My question is: If God is the only basis for human rights, then why is it that, at

  • least, in many parts of the world, weve seen a trend toward increasing secularism

  • and increasing human rights at the same time? >> KELLER: Well, there’s--read Nicholas

  • Wolterstorff’s new book, “Justice, Rights and Wrong.” It’s brand new. It’s a hard

  • book. He’s a philosopher from Yale. It’s Princeton University Press and he says that

  • there’s both an enlightenment basis for human rights and a Christian one.

  • >> Right. >> KELLER: And he would say, one of the reasons

  • why--the enlightenment view of human rights is the individual is the main unit. Individual

  • rights--the individual happiness is more important than the community whereas the classic, most

  • cultures, is that community is more important than the individual. The idea of human rights

  • according to Wolterstorff grew out of Christian roots but it also can grow out of enlightenment

  • roots. But it’s pretty tough to see it growing out of some other religions. So it’s in

  • there... >> Okay. But if it grows out of enlightenment

  • roots then... >> KELLER: As well as--yes.

  • >> As well as Christian but if both lead to human rights, then we don’t need Christianity

  • or... >> KELLER: Oh, no, listen--I was never--wait,

  • oh wait. I’m glad you said this because I want to make this clear. I’m not saying

  • you got to believe in God to be moral or to have human rights. I would say it’s a bigger

  • leap. All I’m trying to say is it makes more sense of the thing you believe in which

  • is human rights, that there be a god than not. That’s all I’m trying to say. So

  • that--then youre sort of confronting--I’m kind of trying to confront you to say, well,

  • what’s the big problem with God if so many of the things you believe in fit in with,

  • well, belief in God. That’s all. But youre absolutely right. Certainly, I don't want

  • anybody to think ever you got to believe in God in order to be a champion of human rights.

  • And, actually, history will show you that it was basically Christians and the agnostics

  • that together came up with the idea of the United States Constitution in which church

  • and state was separate and a big emphasis on the individual rights. It was a confluence

  • of those two groups so were able to get together and agree that we wanted America

  • the way it is. Great question. I hope I did them justice. Yes?

  • >> I have a hundred of questions as well. But, first, I want to tell you something that

  • you may not know. I’ve been to many talks in this room and I’ve never seen it half

  • as full. Once I saw it almost half as full and that was when Violet Blue, the sex blogger,

  • came to talk about sex. >> KELLER: You know, I think I am really flattered.

  • Well,

  • you know, I’m an agnostic about this really. >> Okay. So, the second question, I’m not

  • sure it's a question, but the second question, you talked about this literary example where

  • the writer writes herself into the story. I wonder if youre familiar with the work

  • of Dave Sim who he has this kind of graphic novel series called the Cerebus. And a lot

  • of things… >> KELLER: I’ve heard of him.

  • >> So a lot of things about that comic book, a lot of people would find morally reprehensible

  • but it’s a lot of--it's very interesting in a lot of ways and he has a whole series

  • where he has a conversation as himself as the author talking to his main characters.

  • I find that very interesting. >> KELLER: You know, Tolkien, J. R. R. Tolkien

  • who was a devout Catholic really felt that the reason, a big reason why artists do need--he

  • called it subcreation. The reason why artists have this, this almost compulsion to create

  • is because it’s part--it's part of where we came from which is from God, who is a creator

  • god. And so, then he created all different worlds and people in them as it were and even

  • putting yourself into them, there are--there’s a kind of pragmatic mind that thinks that’s

  • all really weird. But from a Christian point of view, it’s exactly what God is all about.

  • So it’s a good thing. So thank you for your kind words. And you know what? Can I take

  • another couple? I remember I was going to cut this off at 2:25 but I’ll cut it off

  • at 2:30. God, Lord. Okay. Whoever, whoever, whoever is pulling the strings. Yes, go ahead.

  • >> Hello. So I have another question about the human rights.

  • >> KELLER: All right. I’m sorry. Go ahead. >> Okay. That’s all right. So you made a

  • point where human rights doesn’t really--isn’t really observed in nature and stuff like that.

  • >> KELLER: Right. >> So, you know, I was a little confused about

  • that because the example you gave talked about like, you know, an animal of one species attacking

  • an animal of another species, right, where as human--human rights, youre talking about

  • humans, right, so like the same species. And, you know, there are multiple animals that

  • they watch out for others of the same species so it’s…

  • >> KELLER: But now, by the way, probably, I don’t know what I’m talking about here,

  • so... There are certainly plenty of places where the weak animal in the pack, if theyre

  • going to slow down the pack down, they just kill it or they just leave it behind in a

  • way the humans would never do because they realize it would--see, because--well, see,

  • the point is they would keep--that one being, that one weak one is jeopardizing the life

  • of the entire pack. So you would figure evolution would favor people who let the weak die because

  • that’s the way that the pack is going to survive. They do what? They have to leave

  • it behind otherwise everybody dies. >> People under stress of immediate death

  • do that a lot. >> KELLER: Yeah, and I would say it’s because

  • evolution has probably put that into us. >> Right.

  • >> KELLER: Right. And that’s the reason. So I don’t know that it would be fair to

  • say that--no, I really think Annie Dillard's book, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, is really pretty,

  • pretty amazing. And I think she would--she would not just say it’s the water bug killing

  • the frog. >> Okay.

  • >> KELLER: Okay. Good. Okay. Yes, one more. >> Hi, there. First of all, I’m honored

  • to be the last question and thank you very much for coming. It completely grew. I’ve

  • worked here for two and a half years and I’ve never seen the room this full.

  • >> KELLER: Well, you know, me and Violet. >> So

  • >> KELLER: Yeah, we know how to draw a crowd so...

  • >> So your last--my argument against religion is sort of emotional so it’s not fair to

  • ask you to respond to it. >> KELLER: Go ahead. Yeah, sure.

  • >> But I would like you to comment on it because I heard it repeated amongst my colleagues

  • several times. >> KELLER: Sure. Sure. Yeah.

  • >> To me, it feels kind of arbitrary to choose between so many different religions. For example,

  • I have no problem with the argument that there is a god or there isn’t a god. I personally

  • don’t feel either way. I just kind of don’t care about the question because it doesn’t

  • seem to affect me. And when people say there’s a god, I don’t have a problem with it. What

  • I do have a problem with is when people say, “Oh, by the way, God wrote a book and this

  • book that he wrote, even though it contradicts with all the other books, is correct to the

  • exclusion of others.” And I know that I’ve heard a lot of Christians say that, well,

  • Christianity kind of has a leg up on the other religions because in this religion, God actually

  • came down and told us that, you know, he exists, right?

  • >> KELLER: Yeah. I kind of alluded to it, you know.

  • >> Surprisingly enough, there is another religion where this is true as well. I’m actually

  • God. And if you don’t kneel down before me and worship me, youre going to go to

  • hell. And, also, my hell is actually worse than the Christian hell. It’s a lot worse.

  • There’s maggots and snakes, and in-laws and everything. So, and, obviously, you probably

  • aren’t going to worship me which is unfortunate because I kind of need the money. But why

  • not? >> KELLER: Well, the right answer is you probably

  • could have me back to talk about Christianity because I realized that it’s just natural

  • for, you know, the first questioner there, you know, obviously, showed me that--you know,

  • I was sneaking certain Christian presupposition into some of my statements without being able

  • to--without justifying them because nobody really is a generic believer in God. I mean,

  • youre almost always--there are all these different human traditions. There’s Christianity,

  • Islam, eastern, western have really somewhat different views of God and I’m coming from

  • a Christian point of view and I definitely have slipped a few things in there that I

  • didn’t work, I didn’t justify. And if you want to be back and just do a half hour

  • on that, I could. However, my snarky answer, I mean, after all, this is Google and let’s

  • do it this way. My snarky answer is if you were--if you died on the cross after living

  • a life in which everybody is amazed at the quality of it and then, afterwards, hundreds

  • of people see you, you know, with a nail prints in 500 at a time, repeatedly over 40 days,

  • well, that’s different, then people might start to say, you know, people who didn’t

  • believe are believing. They come and they see you, they put the nail--their fingers

  • to the nail prints. That’s a different situation and that’s really what you have with Christianity.

  • >> That did actually happen to me in Antarctica. You probably didn’t hear about it. I can’t

  • provide you any rational evidence for it, but it did happen.

  • >> KELLER: But Christian would never say that. They would say, “Here’s the eye witness

  • accounts. Here’s the 500 people.” 1st Corinthians 15, Paul wrote, this is 15 years

  • after Jesus' death and resurrection, he says, “There’s still--500 people saw Jesus at

  • once, one of his appearances.” And he says, “Most of them are still alive. Go ahead

  • and talk to them.” But youre not doing that. So what youre saying is I can’t

  • give you any witnesses. Paul says, I don’t want you to believe in Christianity unless

  • you go and talk to these people. They're there. And youre not able to provide the same

  • kind of warrant. >> My friend, Brian, over there saw it happened.

  • He could probably tell you about it. >> KELLER: At best, I would say well done

  • and, with that, I'll close. Well done. Thank you for the questions.

>> SON: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for coming out to Authors at Google. My name is

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級

蒂姆-凱勒:"上帝的理由"|在谷歌的演講 (Tim Keller: "The Reason for God" | Talks at Google)

  • 68 9
    xieliren31 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字