
The Reason For God
Belief In An Age Of Skepticism
Categories
Nonfiction, Philosophy, Christian, Religion, Spirituality, Christian Living, Theology, Christian Non Fiction, Christianity, Faith
Content Type
Book
Binding
Hardcover
Year
2008
Publisher
Dutton
Language
English
ASIN
0525950494
ISBN
0525950494
ISBN13
9780525950493
File Download
PDF | EPUB
The Reason For God Plot Summary
Introduction
In an age of increasing skepticism toward religious faith, many people find themselves caught between doubt and belief. They might appreciate certain aspects of Christianity but struggle with intellectual or emotional barriers that prevent them from embracing the faith. These barriers often take the form of questions about suffering, science, exclusivity, or the historical reliability of the Bible. What makes this exploration unique is its approach to doubt. Rather than seeing doubt as the enemy of faith, doubt is recognized as potentially strengthening one's beliefs when properly examined. By addressing both intellectual objections to Christianity and providing positive reasons for belief, this approach creates a space where both skeptics and believers can engage in meaningful dialogue. The central thesis is that both skepticism and faith involve belief systems that should be examined critically, and when this examination occurs, Christianity emerges as not only intellectually credible but also emotionally satisfying and morally compelling.
Chapter 1: The Necessity of Faith: Why Skepticism Requires Its Own Leaps
The common cultural narrative suggests that religious believers are the ones making unproven leaps of faith, while skeptics and secularists are simply following reason and evidence. This framework, however, misunderstands the nature of doubt itself. Every doubt, upon examination, is actually based on an alternative belief. For example, when someone says, "I can't believe in Christianity because there can't be just one true religion," they are making a faith claim—the belief that religious exclusivity is impossible. This position cannot be empirically proven; it is itself a non-provable assumption about the nature of religious truth. Similarly, when someone rejects Christianity because they cannot accept moral absolutes, they are expressing faith in an alternative view—that individual moral autonomy is the highest good. This pattern applies across the spectrum of objections to Christianity. The skeptic who claims, "I don't need God because I'm comfortable with my life as it is" is making the faith assumption that if God exists, He would only be relevant if one emotionally feels the need for Him. The person who insists, "I can't believe in a God who allows suffering" is operating from a faith position that if a good God existed, He would create a world without suffering. The insight here is profound: skepticism about Christianity requires faith commitments of its own. This doesn't mean skeptical beliefs are necessarily false, but it does mean they should be subjected to the same rigorous examination that skeptics demand of religious beliefs. True intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that everyone has basic assumptions that cannot be proven—axioms about meaning, morality, and reality itself. When we recognize this, the conversation shifts from "rational skeptics versus irrational believers" to an exploration of which worldview best accounts for human experience and reality as we know it. To doubt your doubts means examining the often-hidden beliefs underlying your skepticism with the same critical eye you apply to religious beliefs. This approach doesn't guarantee someone will become a Christian, but it creates a more level playing field for examining Christianity's claims. The point is not to eliminate doubt—which can be healthy—but to ensure that one's doubts are consistent and well-examined rather than merely serving as untested excuses for avoiding deeper questions.
Chapter 2: Addressing Cultural Objections to Christianity's Exclusive Claims
One of the most prevalent objections to Christianity in contemporary culture is its claim to exclusivity. The assertion that Jesus is the only way to God strikes many as intolerant, arrogant, and dangerously divisive. However, this objection requires careful examination, as it contains several layers of assumptions that often go unexamined. First, the objection itself contains a logical inconsistency. To claim that all religions are equally valid paths to truth is itself an exclusive truth claim. It assumes a position above all religions from which one can judge them all as equally valid. This "tolerance" view asserts that the one true perspective on religious reality is that no religion can claim unique access to truth—itself a comprehensive and exclusive claim about religious reality. The statement "all religions are equally valid" is just as absolute as the claim that "Christianity is uniquely true." Second, those who make this objection often assume that the primary value in religious discussions should be openness and tolerance rather than truth. Yet why should openness automatically trump truth-seeking? The objection presupposes that unity and acceptance are more important than determining what is actually true about ultimate reality—which is itself a faith position, not a neutral stance. Third, the cultural objection overlooks how Christianity's exclusivity differs from simple intolerance. Christianity teaches that salvation comes through grace, not cultural, ethnic, or moral superiority. This undercuts the spiritual pride that often fuels religious intolerance. The Christian message is that no one—regardless of moral achievement, religious practice, or cultural background—can earn God's favor. This foundational belief promotes humility, not arrogance. Fourth, the critique of exclusivity often assumes that all religions make similar types of claims, differing only in their cultural expressions. This fundamentally misunderstands the distinctive nature of various religious claims. Buddhism's concept of enlightenment, Islam's emphasis on submission to Allah, and Christianity's focus on grace through Christ represent fundamentally different understandings of ultimate reality, not merely cultural variations of the same basic truth. Finally, the cultural objection to exclusivity fails to recognize that every community, religious or secular, operates with boundaries based on shared beliefs. A truly boundaryless community is impossible. Even the most inclusive groups exclude those who don't share their commitment to inclusivity. The question is not whether a community has boundaries, but what kinds of boundaries it has and how it treats those outside those boundaries.
Chapter 3: The Problem of Suffering and the Response of Grace
The problem of suffering represents perhaps the most emotionally powerful objection to Christianity. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does He allow so much pain and suffering in the world? This challenge takes both intellectual and personal forms—for many, it's not just a philosophical puzzle but a deeply felt wound that makes trust in a good God seem impossible. This objection initially appears devastating to Christian belief. However, it contains assumptions that deserve examination. The first assumption is that if we cannot see a good reason for particular instances of suffering, then no such reason exists. This overlooks the limits of human knowledge—our inability to see how specific sufferings might be necessary for greater goods beyond our comprehension. Just as a child cannot understand why a parent allows painful medical treatments, humans may not grasp the full purposes behind suffering in a world created by God. The second assumption is that the existence of suffering is more compatible with atheism than with theism. Yet an atheistic worldview faces its own challenge explaining why we intuitively recognize suffering as wrong. If the universe is merely the product of physical forces and natural selection, our sense that suffering "ought not" to be requires explanation. The very moral outrage we feel at innocent suffering presupposes some transcendent standard of how things should be—a standard difficult to account for in a purely materialistic worldview. Christianity's response to suffering begins not with abstract explanations but with the cross of Christ. In Jesus, God does not remain distant from human pain but enters fully into it. The Christian claim is that God has experienced the worst of human suffering—betrayal, torture, abandonment, and agonizing death. This doesn't answer all questions about why suffering exists, but it transforms the nature of the question from "Why doesn't God care about suffering?" to "What would drive a God to suffer for and with His creation?" Furthermore, Christianity frames suffering within a larger narrative of redemption and restoration. The resurrection promises not merely spiritual comfort but the eventual healing of all creation. The Christian hope is not escape from the material world but its renewal—where, as N.T. Wright puts it, "every tear will be wiped away" and "everything sad will come untrue." This vision doesn't eliminate present suffering, but it does place it in a context where ultimate healing and justice are promised. Suffering also takes on potential meaning within Christianity. While not every instance of suffering can be explained, the Christian framework allows for the possibility that suffering can deepen character, build compassion, and even become a pathway to greater joy. This doesn't justify evil or dismiss genuine pain, but it does suggest that suffering need not be meaningless.
Chapter 4: Science and Faith: Beyond the False Dichotomy
A persistent misconception in contemporary culture is that science and Christian faith are inherently in conflict—that as scientific knowledge advances, religious belief must retreat. This supposed warfare between science and faith is often presented as a choice: either embrace the rational world of scientific evidence or cling to faith-based religious doctrines. This dichotomy, however, rests on several misconceptions. First, it assumes that science can or should evaluate supernatural claims. But science, by definition, studies natural phenomena through empirical observation. It can neither prove nor disprove supernatural realities because its methodology is limited to the natural world. When scientists claim science disproves God, they have moved beyond science into philosophical naturalism—the belief that nothing exists beyond the material world. This is not a scientific conclusion but a philosophical position. Second, the conflict narrative ignores the historical relationship between Christianity and science. Far from being enemies, Christian theology provided key philosophical foundations for scientific inquiry. The belief in a rational Creator who made an orderly universe encouraged early scientists to expect discoverable natural laws. It's no historical accident that modern science arose in Christian Europe, where scholars expected creation to reflect the rationality of its Creator. Many pioneering scientists—from Kepler to Faraday to modern figures like Francis Collins—found their scientific work entirely compatible with Christian faith. Third, the supposed conflict overlooks how most scientists themselves view the relationship between faith and science. Contrary to popular perception, surveys consistently show that a significant percentage of scientists hold religious beliefs. The notion that serious scientists must be atheists is simply false. Many find that science and faith address different but complementary aspects of reality—science exploring the mechanisms of the natural world, faith addressing questions of purpose, meaning, and ultimate origin. Fourth, the specific issue of evolution is often presented as the clearest example of science-faith conflict. However, this oversimplifies both evolutionary theory and Christian approaches to creation. While some Christians do reject evolution, many others find evolutionary mechanisms entirely compatible with belief in God as Creator. The key distinction is between evolution as a biological mechanism and philosophical naturalism—the latter being an interpretation of evolution rather than a scientific finding itself. Finally, the conflict narrative misrepresents how Christians understand miracles. The objection that miracles violate scientific laws misunderstands what Christians actually claim. Miracles are not seen as violations of natural law but as instances where God, who established those laws, acts in ways that transcend them. Just as a human author can enter her own story as a character who acts in ways not predicted by the story's internal logic, Christianity claims God can act within His creation in extraordinary ways.
Chapter 5: The Moral Argument: How Ethics Points to Divine Reality
Many people today believe that morality can be fully grounded without reference to God or religion. We simply know certain actions are right and others wrong, and we can build ethical systems based on this moral intuition without appealing to divine commands. This position, however, faces several significant challenges when examined closely. The first challenge concerns the objective nature of moral claims. Most people, religious or not, speak and act as if certain moral truths are not merely matters of opinion but objectively binding. We don't just dislike cruelty or oppression—we believe they are genuinely wrong regardless of what anyone thinks about them. Even the most committed relativists typically abandon their relativism when faced with genuine injustice. They don't merely say, "I personally dislike genocide" but "Genocide is wrong," making a claim about moral reality itself. But what grounds these objective moral claims in a purely naturalistic universe? If humans are merely the product of mindless evolutionary processes, our moral sensibilities would simply be adaptations that helped our ancestors survive. There would be no reason to consider them true in any objective sense. As philosopher Arthur Allen Leff famously put it, without God, the only response to any moral claim is "Says who?" Every moral statement becomes merely an expression of personal or cultural preference without any binding authority. This leads to the second challenge: the nature of moral obligation. We experience morality not just as a set of feelings or social conventions but as binding duties. We feel the weight of "ought" in our moral consciousness—the sense that we are obligated to act in certain ways regardless of our desires. But in a naturalistic framework, where does this sense of obligation come from? The universe itself, as an impersonal system of matter and energy, cannot generate moral obligations. Social contracts might explain why moral behavior is useful but not why it is obligatory. Third, our moral intuitions point to values that transcend mere survival or social utility. We value justice, compassion, and human dignity in ways that often contradict evolutionary self-interest. Natural selection might explain why we care for our immediate kin, but it struggles to account for why we value the lives of strangers or why we admire those who sacrifice their interests for others. The moral argument suggests that our moral experiences make more sense in a theistic framework. If humans are created by a moral Being who designed us to reflect His character, our moral intuitions can be understood as genuine insights into moral reality rather than merely useful fictions. Our sense of moral obligation becomes comprehensible as recognition of real moral laws established by a moral Lawgiver. This doesn't mean atheists cannot be moral—they certainly can be and often are. Rather, the argument suggests that the objective moral framework they appeal to is more consistent with a theistic worldview than a naturalistic one. The moral argument doesn't prove God exists, but it suggests that our moral experiences provide evidence that points beyond a purely material universe.
Chapter 6: The Gospel Alternative to Religion and Irreligion
In contemporary culture, Christianity is often viewed as one religion among many—a system of beliefs, rituals, and moral codes designed to make people better or provide them with spiritual comfort. This understanding, however, misses what makes the Christian message—the gospel—fundamentally different from both conventional religion and secular irreligion. Traditional religion typically operates on the principle that we must obey God's rules to earn divine approval and rewards. Irreligion rejects this framework entirely, advocating autonomy and self-determination as the path to fulfillment. The gospel presents a third way that undermines both approaches. It claims that salvation comes not through moral or spiritual performance but through grace—God's unmerited favor shown to those who have failed to meet His standards. This distinction becomes clear when examining the psychological dynamics of both religious and irreligious life. The religious person, attempting to earn God's favor through moral effort, often develops either pride (when succeeding) or crushing guilt and insecurity (when failing). Religious performance becomes a way to establish identity and worth. Similarly, the irreligious person seeks to build identity and worth through other achievements—career success, social status, wealth, or relationships. Both approaches lead to a form of slavery, as identity becomes contingent on performance. The gospel radically transforms this psychological landscape. It begins with the acknowledgment that we have failed to meet God's standards and cannot earn His favor through our own efforts. This is humbling but also liberating—it frees us from the exhausting cycle of trying to prove ourselves. Instead of performing to earn God's love, we receive love as a gift through Christ, who lived the perfect life we could not live and died the death we deserved to die. This gospel understanding creates a fundamentally different motivation for moral behavior. Religious people obey moral rules out of fear—fear of punishment, rejection, or loss of identity. Those embracing the gospel obey out of grateful joy—responding to grace already received rather than attempting to earn favor. This transforms morality from burden to delight, from obligation to expression of love. The gospel also reshapes our relationship with others. Religious systems often create boundaries between the "righteous" and "unrighteous," fostering judgmentalism toward outsiders. Secular approaches can lead to viewing others instrumentally—as means to our happiness or obstacles to our autonomy. The gospel teaches that we are all equally broken and equally valued—simultaneously more flawed than we dare admit yet more loved than we dare hope. This creates the groundwork for genuine community across differences. Perhaps most profoundly, the gospel changes how we handle failure. In conventional religion, failure threatens identity and leads to denial, rationalization, or despair. In irreligion, failure often prompts similar defenses, as we struggle to maintain our self-image as competent, worthy individuals. The gospel allows us to acknowledge our failures honestly without being destroyed by them, because our worth is secured not by our performance but by Christ's love.
Chapter 7: The Cross and Resurrection: Historical Evidence and Implications
The central events of Christianity—the death and resurrection of Jesus—are not presented in the New Testament as merely symbolic stories but as historical events with profound implications. These claims deserve careful historical examination rather than dismissal based on philosophical presuppositions against the possibility of miracles. The historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion is overwhelming. Even skeptical scholars acknowledge it as one of the most well-established events of ancient history. Multiple independent sources—including all four gospels, Paul's letters, and non-Christian sources like Josephus and Tacitus—attest to Jesus's execution under Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion also passes the historical criterion of embarrassment; it was a shameful death that early Christians would have been unlikely to invent for their Messiah. The more contentious claim is Jesus's resurrection. Here, several historical facts require explanation. First, Jesus's tomb was found empty by a group of his female followers. This detail is significant because in first-century Jewish culture, women's testimony was not considered legally valid. If the gospel writers were fabricating the story, they would likely have made male disciples the primary witnesses. Second, numerous individuals and groups claimed to have encountered the risen Jesus. Paul, writing within 25 years of the events, refers to over 500 people who claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ, many of whom were still alive when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). These reported appearances occurred in various settings and to different types of people, including skeptics like James (Jesus's brother) and enemies like Paul himself. Third, the disciples' behavior underwent a dramatic transformation. The same followers who fled when Jesus was arrested began boldly proclaiming his resurrection in Jerusalem, where their claims could easily have been disproven if the body remained in the tomb. Most eventually died for this testimony—a fact that while not proving their claims were true, certainly suggests they sincerely believed them. Fourth, the early Christian movement centered on resurrection belief emerged in a cultural context hostile to such ideas. Jews believed in a future general resurrection, not an individual resurrection in the middle of history. Greeks and Romans viewed bodily resurrection as repulsive, preferring the soul's liberation from the body. The disciples' proclamation of Jesus's resurrection would have faced strong cultural resistance, not acceptance. Alternative explanations—such as the disciples stealing the body, Jesus merely swooning rather than dying, or the witnesses experiencing hallucinations—each face significant historical problems. The resurrection hypothesis, while requiring openness to supernatural possibility, actually provides the most comprehensive explanation for the historical data. If the resurrection did occur, its implications are profound. It would validate Jesus's claims about his identity as the Son of God and confirm his teaching. It would demonstrate God's power over death and evil. And it would transform our understanding of history itself—not as an endless cycle or meaningless progression, but as moving toward ultimate renewal and restoration. Far from being merely a spiritual symbol, the resurrection claim stands as Christianity's central historical foundation, inviting both intellectual investigation and personal response.
Summary
At its core, this exploration reveals that both skepticism and faith involve belief systems that should be subjected to critical examination. When we honestly interrogate our doubts, we often discover they rest on unexamined assumptions that are themselves acts of faith. Meanwhile, the positive case for Christianity emerges not as an irrational leap but as a coherent framework that makes sense of human experience—our moral intuitions, our search for meaning, our yearning for justice, and our hunger for something beyond the material world. The Christian worldview offers a unique perspective that avoids both religious moralism and secular autonomy. Through its central narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration, Christianity addresses the deepest human questions with intellectual rigor and emotional resonance. While it doesn't eliminate all mystery or answer every question, it provides a framework where both our rationality and our spiritual longings find their home. The invitation is not to blind faith but to a reasoned trust that embraces both intellectual inquiry and personal commitment—a trust that transforms not only what we believe but how we live in response to a God who is both rational and relational.
Best Quote
“If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all that he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.” ― Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Review Summary
Strengths: Keller's logical and philosophical approach effectively addresses complex issues like the problem of evil and the conflict between science and faith. His respectful engagement with skeptics and ability to simplify theological concepts are significant positives. Real-life examples and personal anecdotes enrich the text, making it relatable and grounded. Weaknesses: Some readers feel that not all skeptic concerns are fully addressed by Keller's arguments. Additionally, the book may rely heavily on Christian apologetics, potentially overlooking alternative worldviews. Overall Sentiment: The book is generally well-received as a thoughtful and reasoned exploration of faith, appealing to both believers and non-believers interested in the intersection of religion and reason. Key Takeaway: "The Reason for God" offers a compelling case for Christianity, blending intellectual rigor with empathy, and serves as a valuable resource for those exploring faith amidst skepticism.
Trending Books
Download PDF & EPUB
To save this Black List summary for later, download the free PDF and EPUB. You can print it out, or read offline at your convenience.

The Reason For God
By Timothy J. Keller