The Reason for God - Timothy Keller (Part 2 The Reason for Faith)

After a short intermission explaining exactly what he is referring to with terms such as Christianity and Rationality, a key step which is often skipped by those doing the opposite, Keller concludes the book with the remaining chapters grouped together as "The Reason for Faith"

In the remaining chapters, Keller shows that Christianity actually provides a better explanation for people's inherent moral beliefs and ideas about the universe.

"The story of the gospel makes sense of moral obligation and our belief in the reality of justice, so Christians do restorative and redistributive justice wherever they can. The story of the gospel makes sense of our indelible religiousness, so Christians do evangelism, pointing the way to forgiveness and reconciliation with God through Jesus. The gospel makes sense of our profoundly relational character so Christians work sacrificially to strengthen human communities around them as well as the Christian community, the church. The gospel story also makes sense of our delight in the presence of beauty, so Christians become stewards of the material world, from those who cultivate the natural creation through science and gardening to those who give themselves to artistic endeavours, all knowing why these things are necessary for human flourishing. "

In the first chapter of part 2, Keller gives the most significant "Clues of God"; The mysterious bang from which everything is contingent, yet must have some supernatural, non-contingent explanation; That the odds of a life supporting world like ours being produced are infinitessmal; That science can not prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it on faith; That the hunger for beauty and truth point to their existance in the same way that physical hunger points to the existence of food; That evolutionary biology can not invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it, or explain aspects of human nature that do not conform to survival of the species.

Basically the fact that this debate exists at all, that people have thoughts and concepts of good and bad, and beauty and truth, moral obligation, of human rights, of God - is best explained if God actually exists.

For example, if you believe there are some universal human rights, that belong to your friends as well as your enemies, this is not supported by a world view that says they are a random collection of atoms.

Keller's challenge: If a premise ("There is no God") leads to a conclusion you know isn't true, then why not change the premise? We do this when we live as though our lives and the choices we make have meaning, or when we believe that some things are always wrong yet we fail to acknowledge that meaning and universal morality can not be found in naturalism or evolution.

It is dishonest to live as if he is there (giving us meaning and morality) and yet fail to acknowledge him.