YouTube Transcript:
Questioning Christianity Ep 1: Faith & Proof – Timothy Keller

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This content explores the complex relationship between faith and reason, arguing that secularism itself is a belief system, not merely the absence of faith, and that both religious and secular individuals operate on unprovable foundational beliefs.

Mind Map

Click to expand

Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate

I'm going to introduce to you our

speaker, Dr. Timothy Keller.

Dr. Timothy Keller was born and raised

in Pennsylvania in 1989. He started

Redeemer Presbyterian Church in

Manhattan with his wife Kathy and their

three sons. He's the author of multiple

books, but is best known for his New

York Times bestseller, The Reason for

God and Making Sense of God, and uh and

making sense of God, from which the

series is based. A fun trivia fact about

Tim tonight is that he's actually a very

musical person, and he has largely

memorized the musical Music Man from

Broadway. Please join me in welcoming

I memorized some of the music man a long

time ago.

>> Um hi. Questioning Christianity. Um

why are we here?

We're here one reason we're here because

we live in a polarized society. We're

polarized about so many things uh

including religion. And it would be

great, wouldn't it, if we just could

find a place where we could talk with

each other about religion without

yelling at each other.

Now, uh that would be, I think, a

contribution. Now, there's a lot of ways

to do that. There are more than one way.

The way we're going to do in during this

series is just this. Uh

seeking to be as respectful as possible

to all points of view. I still am going

to each week try to present a thesis a

part of Christianity for uh I'm going to

recommend it to you to say I think this

is something worth worthy of your

consideration. This is something worthy

of you to believe. And there's going to

be presentation. Then there's going to

be plenty of time for questioning my

presentation. You get to text in your

questions. You may some of you already

have. You can do it tonight. So it'll be

almost equal time. I hope if I don't run

on too far. I'd like to give your

presentation, then you get to question

me, and then afterwards we get to go

upstairs and eat u not bad food and uh

talk informally. and I'm I'll be present

for you to just come right up and tell

me what you really really think. Uh and

that's what we're going to do. So each

week that's what we're going to do. Thesis

Thesis question

question

go upstairs and talk. Uh we've done this

a couple years uh a couple other years

before and it's been really really

fruitful and that's why we're doing it

again. Uh now this first session to some

degree I've got to set the table. have

got to do ground work. And because you

can't talk about

whether you can believe in God or not

believe in God, whether you can believe

in Christianity or not believe in

Christianity. There's no way to do that

unless you first go back far enough and

say, well, how do you decide what to

believe in any situation? How do you

believe in anything?

Uh what how do faith and reason uh

relate? Or the subtitle,

can you believe in things you can't

prove? How can you believe in things

that you can't prove?

And so, we've got to get all the way in

the back and ask ourselves the question,

how does faith and reason work? And the

way I like to do that tonight is I like

to pose a problem for you. I like to

show you a problem, give you a couple of

theories that don't work as solutions,

and then I'm going to tell give you what

I do think works as a solution and a way

forward. So, we're setting the table for

all the other talks.

problem, solutions that don't work, a

solution I think that does, and a way

forward. Now, here's the problem. And

because uh you probably have your own

list, I'm going to give you a list of

very smart people that I know of who

looked at the evidence and the arguments

and converted to Christianity. And a

whole lot of people who are just as

smart, who looked at the same evidence,

the same arguments, and they left

Christianity, became atheists or

agnostics. Tonight when I use the word

secular, I'll probably mean certainly an

atheist is secular. Certainly an

agnostic is secular. A lot of secular

people say, "I really don't know." Or

then there's the indifferent person who

says, "I don't know if there's a God and

I don't care. It's completely irrelevant

to me." So there's there's a lot of

brilliant people who've looked at the

evidence and have converted to

Christianity from being secular or

converted to being secular from being a Christian.

Christian.

Um, I'll give you a couple of my own.

You have your own list.

Uh, uh, Elizabeth Anskim,

who taught philosophy at Oxford and

Cambridge in the middle of the 20th

century and was probably the most

prominent female philosopher in history.

And a lot of you are saying, I never

heard of her. That's telling, isn't it?

That, but that's another lecture right

there. Why have you not heard of her?

She's brilliant. Brilliant. Greatest

female philosopher ever. She converted

to Christianity.

uh Francis Collins who uh led the human

genome project is one of the leading

scientists in the whole world is the

head of the NIH uh he was an atheist and

converted to Christianity.

Uh TS Elliott probably heard of him very

very famous playwright poet man of

letters who was an atheist or an

agnostic and then converted to

Christianity. on the other side. Uh

these are some people you know and some

you don't people I know. Mark Lila who

teaches humanities at Columbia

University. Brilliant man. I've been in

a couple of uh forums with him. Uh he's

written some great books recently. Uh

Mark Lill had a very strong religious

background. Uh and yet he grew up and

after becoming an adult he looked at it

and said no and became a secular man.

uh Richard Dawkins, very famous guy who

was raised an Anglican and somewhere in

his late teens said this is ridiculous

and he became an atheist and Bert

Russell Burton Russell was a very famous

20th century British philosopher who was

an atheist and near the end of his life

somebody asked him uh he said Mr.

Russell Dr. Russell. Uh, what happens if

you die and you find out you were wrong

and you stand before God in his judgment

seat? What are you going to do? And

Bertie Russell didn't miss a beat. He

said, I'm going to say, don't blame me,

God. There wasn't enough evidence.

In fact, he says, I I'll say to him,

there was not enough evidence, God. Not

enough evidence. So, you know, you

should not blame me for anything. But

here's the funny thing about this.

TS Elliott, Francis Collins, who by the

way is a scientist, Elizabeth Anskim,

who's a brilliant, brilliant analytic

philosopher, they thought there was

enough evidence. They thought there was

plenty of evidence. So here you have

equally brilliant people looking at the

same stuff. One group saying, "No way.

No way. No evidence at all. It's just no

proof, no evidence, no reason to believe

in God." another group

saying yes there is plenty of it. How do

you account for that class? Don't raise

your hands on let let me suggest two theories

theories

of how to explain that that I don't

think work.

The first one I'm going to be really

quick about with this theory because

even though I know people who believe

this and I've met people who believe

this, they're un almost it's very

unlikely any of you in this room would

be in this in this uh uh this category.

But there are some people who say that

the reason why the the uh this group of

people uh believe and this group of

people uh don't believe is because the

secular people are simply closing their

eyes to the evidence.

In other words, the people who believe

in God are rational and the people who

refuse to look at the evidence and

become atheists and secular people,

they're being irrational and biased.

This approach says this. This group

says, "Look, the proofs for God, the

cosmological, teological, ontological,

moral, the proofs for God, they're

really strong." And we're going to get

to those sometime in the in the series

later. And the evidence for the

resurrection of Jesus Christ is very,

very strong. And therefore, any rational

person who is objective and open-minded

will simply say, "Why this? There's

every reason to believe in God. And if

you don't, it's because you have some uh

bias and you're just closing your eyes

to the facts. Now, maybe I maybe uh the

reason I'm being so quick on this, I'm

not going to spend much time on it. I

don't think that works for a couple

reasons. I'm not going to take much time

on it because I again I don't think any

of those people live in New York City.

Um hardly.

Uh and there's here's here's a couple

reasons why. By the way, there is such a

thing as bias. Secular people can and do

have their biases against belief. The

book of Romans actually talks about

them, and I'm going to get to that a

little later. But having said that,

spending decades and decades with people

who've wrestled with whether to believe

in Christianity or not, and wrestled

with the arguments and wrestled with the

the evidence and all that, I've spent

decades with people. And here's one of

the things I know.

There is no even the strongest, put it

this way, even the strongest logical

arguments for God and for Christianity

always, they're never completely airtight.

airtight.

They're never completely airtight. Uh

maybe there may be one argument that's

kind of airtight, but all it does is

take you to be to believe in Aristotle's

unmoved mover. It doesn't take you to

the God of the Bible. Uh the reality is

that there are there are great good

arguments. I'm going to give them to you

if you're willing to be here tonight and

to come back later. Uh but when it when

it comes to to saying every rational

person has to accept the evidence for

religion and Christianity because

frankly uh all the arguments are

completely airtight. That's not true.

There's always wiggle room. There's

always room for doubt. Always. And the

the reality is that so many of people

I've seen who just cannot believe are

people of real intellectual integrity.

So, it's really not fair to say, "Oh,

they're just being biased." Besides that,

that,

I'm a Christian, which means I believe

that God wants faith.

And however you define faith, it's more

than just reason. In other words, if to

say, well, you know, anyone who's open

to the evidence would be compelled,

every rational person over the evidence

is compel would be compelled to believe.

Well, that's all I know is that that

doesn't make that doesn't leave room for

faith. God has set things up. This is

the Christian view. So that you do you

you can exercise faith which means

whatever that is is somewhat beyond

reason. Uh reason is not enough to make

you a Christian or a believer. It never

has been. And so it's really wrong to

simply say well religious people they

they're being rational and the secular

people are being irrational. Um and

that's the reason why uh Richard Dawkins

and those people and Bur and Russell

they just closed their eyes to the

truth. No, these are people of

intellectual integrity and uh we we we

have to realize there's a limit to just

how uh even the strongest logical

arguments for God. But theory too, the

second theory which is dominant in a

place like New York City and that's why

we're going to spend some time on it.

The second theory says this that secular

people are secular because of reason but

religious people are religious because

of faith. Secular people have reason but

religious people have faith and they

have an emotional need

to believe.

Secular people are just being unbiased.

They're just simply looking at things

with a clear eye of fa of of reason. But

anyone who becomes a believer has some

emotional need. We're not saying that TS

Elliott and Francis Collins and and

Elizabeth Anskam aren't smart people,

but they must have had some need because

if you just look at things objectively,

you'll be secular. So that idea is this

theory is secular people have reason,

but religious people have faith. And I'm

here to tell you that's not true.

uh Charles Taylor in his landmark book,

A Secular Age, calls that a subtraction

theory. Now, what do I mean by the

subtraction theory? Excuse me. I'll

bring this up just so I know.

Charles Taylor says that most secular

people tell a subtraction story. What

they mean is they say, "I used to

believe in God, but then I just took

away belief in God in the supernatural.

I subtracted it out and now I just see

things the way they are with a clear eye

of reason. Um I I found this uh you

might say a testimony on the internet. A

guy who had been a Christian and he lost

his faith and his name is uh doesn't

matter. I mean he's a name his name is

SA Joyce but here's what he said. He was

looking at the evidence and he said the

question entered my mind what is a god

for whom there is no real evidence?

Non-existent came the obvious answer.

And at that point, the blinders of dogma

and the yoke of dread were finally taken

off. For the first time, the universe

now shown in a wholesome new light. The

comforting glow of reality no longer

distorted. I was free. Now, Charles

Taylor calls that a subtraction story,

which is to say, I was a believer and I

just took out God and the supernatural

and I just used my reason. I got rid of

faith and emotion and I just am looking

at it objectively and when I see that

now I can finally see see things uh

clearly and um in fact what they would

say is finally I'm uh uh able to see

life as it is. Now, how do they ex

explain say Francis Collins and

Elizabeth Anom Anskum and and TS? What

they say is well look the reality is

there's lots of reasons why you might

want God to be there. Like you want to

believe that when you die it's not the

end. You want to believe that when you

die you could be with your loved ones.

There's all kinds of reasons uh

emotional reasons uh that you don't

really want to see life as it is. But if

you are just willing to get rid of

emotion and get rid of dogma and get rid

of all those things and just look at the

world through the clear eye of reason

without any faith or belief just

objectively then you'll become a secular

person. Uh, interestingly

Frank, uh, the, um, Charles Taylor's

massive book, A Secular Age, and Charles

Taylor is a Canadian philosopher, French

Canadian philosopher. He devotes the

entire book almost to showing that

that's not true. And here's what his

thesis is. And here's my thesis tonight.

And this is a thesis I want you to push

back on. And I happen to know it's a

thesis that's very unpopular in New

York. Okay? Thesis is this. If you're a

secular person, secularism is not the

absence of belief. It's a new set of

beliefs which are just as unprovable

as other religious beliefs. Let me say

it again. If you're a secular person,

secularism is not the absence of belief.

It's not just rational objectivity.

It's not the absence of beliefs. It's

the presence of a whole new set of

beliefs which also are not provable

either. And therefore, secular people

and and Christian people equally have to

justify their beliefs. But one does not

have the higher moral ground. Secular

people cannot say, "Well, we're rational

and if you religious people can prove

God, then we'll believe it. We're

rational and if you give us the

evidence, then we'll believe it." No.

No. you're on the same playing field

because it's two sets of beliefs,

neither of which are provable. Both of

which need to be justified. Does that

make sense? I know that it's I know it's

very unpopular. So, let me follow along

uh with what Charles Taylor says to make

his case. Ready?

Charles Taylor says the subtraction

story doesn't work. The idea that

secular people are don't have faith, but

they're just being reasonable and

objective. Uh the first reason it

doesn't work is because you can't

disprove the existence of God.

And because you can't disprove the

existence of God, that means if you're

living as if there is no God,

you're doing it on faith. You have faith

that there is no God. You're betting

your life that there is no God. And

therefore, if you're a secular person,

you are living by faith.

See, I've talked to many secular people

who say this.

I don't believe in the abominable

snowman unless you can give me evidence

for it. So why should I believe in God

unless you give me evidence for it? Now,

when you say that, you're making a

category mistake.

It's a category mistake because God, no

religion, I'm not talking about just

Christianity here. No religion actually

believes that God is an object inside

the universe like the abominable

snowman. Here's a better way to

understand what religion is saying.

Religions, all the religions of the

world say this material world cannot

exist on its own.

Matter could not just happen. Matter

cannot just keep itself

uh maintained. That there must be

something some immaterial being, some

supernatural reality that generated

matter and that upholds matter. Okay.

Secular people say no no no no matter

generated itself. It just it caused

itself and it can support itself. So

religious the religions of the world say

matter cannot generate or maintain

itself. And secular people say well yes

it can. There's nothing but matter.

There is no transcendent reality. Now

how are you going to prove one of those

views? What experiment?

What scientific test could you use

to to even test the secular thesis that

matter generated itself and doesn't need

any uh undergirling reality behind it?

How do you test for that? You can't uh

when uh when a secular person says,

"Well, we don't know where matter came

from. It just came." Okay. How do you

how do you test for that? You can't test

for that.

um bla1 Pascal's famous wager

maybe you've heard of it he basically

says you cannot prove that there is a

god but you cannot prove that there is

no god it's impossible to prove

something like that and therefore

whoever you are you're basing your life

and betting your life on an act of faith

that either there is or there isn't a

god so secular people actually have a

view of the material world and reality

that can't be proven

and therefore it's based on faith.

That's the first thing Charles Tiller

says. Here's the second thing he says.

Now, the second reason that subtraction

story doesn't work is because there are

as many emotional reasons to disbelieve

in God as there is to believe in God.

And therefore, that's a wash. I'm a

believer and I got plenty of there's

plenty of emotional reasons I might want

to believe in God and it might cloud my

rational faculties. But if you are here

tonight and you're not a believer, there

is plenty of emotional reasons to that

you might have to not believe. You might

have to not believe in God. And that can

also cloud your rational faculties. Uh

Thomas Nagel taught um for many years

taught philosophy at NYU. Very famous

uh philosophy professor down there. He

wrote a book some years ago. He's an

atheist. And here's what he said.

He said, 'I want atheism to be true, and

I am made uneasy by the fact that some

of the most intelligent and

well-informed people I know are

religious believers. It isn't just that

I don't believe in God, and naturally, I

hope that I'm right. It's that I hope

there is no God. I don't want there to

be a God. I don't want the universe to

be like that. My guess is that this

cosmic authority problem that I have is

not rare. Isn't that interesting you

called that a cosmic authority problem?

My guess is that this cosmic authority

problem is not a rare condition and that

it is responsible for much of the

scientism and reductionism of our time.

One of the tendencies it supports is the

ludicrous overuse of evolutionary

biology to explain everything about

human life. This is a ridiculous

situation. It is just as irrational to

be influenced in one's belief by the

hope that God does not exist as by the

hope that God does exist.

You may have heard of Aldis Huxley who

was a famous atheist British uh writer

uh and he wrote this. He said the

philosopher who finds no meaning in the

world is not concerned exclusively with

the problem of pure metaphysics.

He is also concerned to prove that

there's no valid reason why he should

not live the way he wants to live. I

must admit for myself

the philosophy of meaninglessness was

essentially an instrument of liberation

from a certain system of morality. I

objected to the morality because it

interfered with my sexual freedom.

And Tom Nagel adds a footnote. He says,

"I am curious whether there's anyone who

is genuinely indifferent as to whether

there's a god or not. Anyone who,

whatever his actual belief about the

matter, doesn't particularly want either

one of those answers to be correct."

See, what I'm trying to say is simply

this. There's lots of emotional reasons

why you might not want to believe in

God. Because as Aldis Suxley said and

Tom Nagel said, that means I can't live

any way I want. But there's also plenty

of emotional reasons why I do want you

might want to believe in God. And

therefore, just realize wherever you

are, whoever you are, you do have some

biases. You do have some needs that

might cloud your rational faculties.

It's not going to be easy. therefore to

to think about this in a in a good way

in a in a clear-minded way. But you

mustn't say all the emotional needs are

on that side. Believers should never

say, "Oh, secular people, they just

don't want to believe in God because

they want to live any way they want."

And secular people must not say, "Oh,

religious people, they want to believe

in God so that they can know they can go

to heaven when they die." Well, the

answer is yeah, they're both true. And

therefore, it's a wash. In other words,

this argument does not cut either way.

But it certainly does not mean that

secular people can just say, "Oh,

there's absolutely no reason why, you

know, I'm I'm that I'm being totally

objective." It's Do you hear what Tom

Nagel said at the end? He says, "I doubt

very much there's anybody who comes to

the question about God in a objective,

unbiased way. I don't believe anybody

does." But here's the main reason why

Charles Taylor says secular people have

got to admit that their secularism is

really a new belief set, a new set of

beliefs, not the absence of belief, is

because they have beliefs about

rationality and morality.

Secular people have beliefs about

rationality, morality that are unprovable

unprovable

and they yet they're the very basis of

their lives. What do I mean by that?

Well, what does he mean by that? I'm

still following Taylor. So Taylor says

for example um whenever somebody says

I'm just being rational if you could

prove Christianity to me or he could

prove God to me then I believe and

Charles Taylor who's smarter than you

and me and anybody in this room and

who's a philosopher says uh would you

please define proof

he says you know there's at least four

you can look this up even on even on

online go to Wikipedia there's if you

put in the word rationality you'll see

there's at least four or five different

working definitions of rationality. Each

one thinking the other ones aren't rational.

rational.

And outside of math,

when you talk about proof, there's proof

in mathematics. That's one thing. But

proof in law, proof in philosophy,

proof in science.

Nobody agrees on exactly what proof

means. And here's the weird thing. You

cannot advocate for a particular view of

proof without using that view of proof

which is the thing you're supposed to be

establishing. Which means reason is

always based on antecedent faith.

But let me go on a little further.

Martin Haidiger, the philosopher,

Michael Palani, who was a scientist,

both wrote about uh what they called

tacet beliefs. They said anyone who ever

thinks they're being objective

never is. Anyone who ever thinks they're

being completely rational never is

because we have background beliefs

that are he they call it well Michael

Pauline called them tacet beliefs.

They're background beliefs which are

virtually unconscious but which actually

affect whether we consider certain

arguments convincing or not.

So let me give you a perfect example of

this. Charles Taylor in his book asks a

interesting question. And he says, "Why

is it that before 1500,

1500 AD, you know, the the year 1500,

before 1500, people suffered? They've

probably suffered worse than we suffer

today." But nobody said that that meant

there couldn't be a god. Nobody.

But since the year 1500, increasingly

people say because of evil and suffering

there can't be a god. So you know the

argu it's called the argument from evil

and the argument or it technically it's

called the aological argument from evil

which is because of the evil and

suffering of the world

god can't exist because if he was good

and all powerful he would stop it that's

the argument uh and we're not going to

talk about that tonight we're going to

talk about it later if you're willing to

come back but uh Charles Teller says why

is it that in the asked that argument

was totally unconvincing to people and

why is it today it's very convincing to

many people and the answer is he says

background beliefs that you're barely

aware of he said ancient people

background belief was that if there is a

god of course I wouldn't understand him

if there is a god of course my reason my

human reason would be incapable of

plumbing the depths of him

but modern people are very very

confident that human reason can figure

out the universe very confident and

therefore modern people say if I can't

think of a good reason why God would

allow this evil and suffering there

can't be any good reason got that

ancient people would never have thought

about that so why is it that modern

people find that argument very

compelling ancient people didn't find it

compelling at all it's the background

beliefs that we're not even sure of

we're not even we don't even see them

it's the background beliefs and so

Michael Ply and Martin Haidiger say

nobody comes to the evidence evidence.

This is by the way one of the reasons

why Collins over here and Dawkins over

here both great scientists would look at

the same evidence. One say yes God

exists and one says no God doesn't exist

because neither of them are completely

objective. There's background beliefs

about human nature about the nature of

human reason about all kinds of things

Haidiger and Palani say that are

actually affecting the way in which you read.

read.

I'll give you a couple more of those in

in a minute. But so you see the main

point first point Charles Taylor says if

you say I'm being rational you're

defining reason you're defining proof

you've got all kinds of background

beliefs and the fact is that all reason

whenever you're rational whenever you're

using your reason your reason is always

grounded on antecedent faith beliefs

about the nature of proof about the

nature of reality and background beliefs

that you can you're barely aware of and

so the one one reason why secular people

actually are based on faith is because

they have faith in a particular view of

rationality. But secondly, and this is

maybe the one I'm going to probably the

one that'll

hit home the most, Charles Taylor says

secular people still have morals.

Secular people in particular have two

two moral values. He says it's equal

human rights and universal benevolence.

Now, when Taylor talks about equal human

rights, you know what I'm talking about.

the idea that every human being is equal

in value and dignity and has rights.

That's one moral belief that uh secular

people have. And the second moral belief

is universal benevolence. That is I

shouldn't just take care of the poor

people in my neighborhood or my family

or my race or my community. I really

should be concerned about po the the

poor and the needy everywhere, every

place. I should be talking, you know, I

should be caring about all of them. So

the belief in the moral obligation

of honoring human equal human rights and

the moral obligation

of um of universal benevolence. He says

now Charles Stiller says okay those are

moral beliefs. Secular people have them.

Prove it. Give me a scientific proof

that all human beings are equal. Give me

a scientific proof that everybody's uh

got equal rights. Do it. And the answer

is you can't

because those moral values, all moral

values, if you've got them, are always

matters of faith. There's no scientific

way to prove them. But, and here's what

here's where I'm going to push it a

little bit.

For a Christian to believe in human

rights, according to Friedrich Nichi,

Charles Taylor, and a uh John Gray, who

uh is a a philosopher who's still

writing right now. He just recently

wrote a book called Seven Types of

Atheism. According to Friedri Nichi and

Charles Taylor and John Gray, who is an

atheist by the way, what they all say is

that the idea of human rights and the

idea of universal benevolence makes

sense. It's a logical inference if you

believe there's a God

who created the universe who made all

human beings in his image and who

commands you to love as he loves. So if

you have a God of love who creates

everyone and and and puts his image on

everyone then the to believe in

universal benevolence and equal human

rights for all is actually not a matter

of faith. It might be h you might have

faith to believe in that god but once

you believe in that god it's a logical inference

inference

human rights and universal benevolence

but here's what nichi says ni says what

if there is no god which is what he

believes and what if the universe is impersonal

impersonal

and what if we're not here for any

purpose and what if the only way you got

here was through evolution which is the

strong eating the weak which is the way

of nature it is absolutely natural

for the strong to devour the weak.

That's how you got here. That's called

evolution. And Friedrich Nishi says, "If

you still want to believe in equal human

rights and you should take care of the

poor and the needy, which of course is

the exact opposite of the way you got

here, which is evolution to totally

opposite. If you still want to believe

in that, that's fine. But it's an

amazing leap of faith." And by the way,

Nichi says it's not fine because Nichi

says if you believe in equal human

rights and you believe in universal

benevolence and you say I don't believe

in God, you're still believing in

Christianity whether you like to believe

it or not. Ni um because he says he says

those values made sense in a universe in

which you had a personal God of love who

made everyone. They don't make sense in

our universe at all. If you want to

believe in them, okay, but it's a

massive leap of faith, a bigger leap

than Christians are making. So, for

example, John Gray says this about

Nietze. He says, "With few exceptions,

contemporary atheists are earnest and

militant liberals."

Awkwardly, Nchief points out that all

liberal values derive from Jewish and

Christian monotheism, and he rejected

those values for that very reason. What

Nichi recognizes is that you can be rid

of God only if you also do away with all

innate moral meaning.

Civilization is in the process of

ditching divinity while still clinging

to all the those values that came from

the belief in divinity and that this

egregious act of bad faith must not go uncontested.

uncontested.

So um

you see what's going on. So for example,

a guy named uh Andrew Kppelman

is a professor of law and political

science at Northwestern University

and uh he's a secular man, an agnostic

he calls himself. He reviewed Charles

Taylor's book, The Secular Age. And he

really felt the power of this whole

point, the subtraction story. And he

really felt the power of the argument

that said, if you're a secular person

and you believe in human rights and you

believe in universal benevolence, that

sort of thing, you really don't have any

basis on it. And it's a it's a complete

leap of faith into the dark. And this is

what he says. He says, "I'm not prepared

to argue, as other secular people do,

that there is no transcendent basis for

my commitment to human rights." and that

my commitment to human rights is of a

purely contingent historical formation

and therefore I have to admit there's a

permanent gap in my belief system. He

goes on and he tries to say what he

means by secular people who say that

human rights is a purely historical

formation. What they mean is that they

say, "Yeah, today we think slavery was

wrong because now it's the majority

opinion, but in the past it wasn't wrong

and in the future it might not be wrong

again because there are no moral

absolutes. There can't be. What could

what could be what could be what could

be wrong with nature? Nature is strong,

eat the weak. What could be wrong with

nature unless you have a supernatural

transcendent basis by which you can

judge? Some things in nature are right

and some things in nature are wrong. But

there can't be such a thing." So this

guy is saying, 'Well, I don't believe in

God, but I still believe what he says. I

actually believe slavery always was

wrong and always will be wrong, no

matter what the people say. And so his

is his final statement. Quote, he says,

"Modern secularism then is a religious

worldview with its own narrative of

testing and redemption, and it shares

the vulnerabilities of such views." And

there's another guy who's not a faculty

member. He's just a guy I found on the

internet who also reviewed Charles

Taylor's book. The reason I was

interested in it is a young man, his

name, his first name is David, I'll just

call him David, who uh grew up in a very

very very fundamentalist conservative

background, went a very conservative

fundamentalist college and moved to New

York City probably 15 20 years ago I

think now and lost his faith and he's

now a secular person. And then he read

Charles Taylor's secular age which said

you're not objective. what you've done

is you've you have left aside one set of

unprovable beliefs and you have just

adopted another set of unprovable

beliefs. And this is what he says.

Really really interesting. He says,

"When I began to lose my faith, a lot of

my Christian friends told me I was just

trying to be cool.

At the time, I told them that my loss of

faith was strictly the result of good,

solid intellectual arguments." All by

the way, capitalized. good capital G

solid capital S intellectual arguments.

In other words, he basically said it's

all a matter I've just looked at the re

the reasons. I looked at the evidence.

It's all rational. I'm just being

objective. In other words, he told him a

subtraction story. But this is what he

said after reading after reading uh

Charles Taylor. He said, 'I now must

concede that rational arguments though

it played a role in the change

was my coming to secular uh beliefs was

not a new more or yeah pardon me. He

says okay

he says what actually happened to me was

not me coming out of the cave into the daylight

daylight

but it was a matter of a new more or

less equally faith-based story eclipsing

the old one.

What happened here he said was that as

many value judgment there are as many

value judgments in liberal humanism as

there are in its parent religion in

other words Christianity

and many people who come to the point of

unbelief are happy to accept them

despite objecting to what they consider

the similar ungroundedness of

Christianity it's amusing now how little

my values intrinsically had to do with

materialism I've been convinced of

nothing about individual liberty human

rights or civilizational progress

follows from the fact that I now believe

God is not does not exist. Now, so what

he's saying is I used to say the reason

I became a secular person was because I

was just being rational. Actually, I

know that my belief in human value, my

belief in human rights actually does not

follow from my belief that God is

doesn't exist. There was a uh Alexander

no Salvaf

he was a Russian philosopher

um and he says this in a nutshell trying

to say what Nichi saying he says man

descended from apes by a process of the

strong eating the weak therefore let us

love one another and what he was what he

was trying to do is summarize what Nichi

was saying he was saying I'm sorry the

idea of love and of human rights is not

follow from the idea that there is no

God. And therefore, if you want to

believe in human rights, go ahead. But

realize that's faith. It's faith. So,

what's the solution? Now,

I'm telling you

that the reason why you get smart people

who look at the evidence and come out on

different different places is because

the process of losing your faith or

gaining your faith is more complicated

than anybody wants to admit. It's not

just a matter of looking at arguments

and and uh evidence. Number one, you've

got to look at your own background

beliefs. You got to try to discern your

own background beliefs. And number two,

you have to realize wherever you stand

at that moment, you're not being

objective. You've got your own set of

commitments and beliefs. And therefore,

the way forward is to compare beliefs.

Uh when I've given this talk before,

usually people say, "Wait a minute. So

you're saying we're all kind of

religious. We we all are are filled with

faith." Yes. I'm saying that secularism

is a set of beliefs. They're not

provable scientifically and logically.

They're not self-evident to everyone.

And they have their own contradictions

and problems. So, some people say,

"Well, that means that we're all sort of

stuck in our little bubbles of faith. We

can't I can't prove my beliefs to you.

You can't prove your beliefs to me. So,

we're stuck." No, no, not really.

Because you can rationally interrogate

your set of beliefs. You can at least at

least do these five things. You can at

least do these five things. Number one,

you can ask if your beliefs are

consistent with one another

or whether your beliefs contradict each

other. Number two, you can ask whether

your human experience fits your beliefs.

Are you actually able to live your your

faith out or do you find that your faith

is constantly bumping up against the

reality of human experience? Number three,

three,

can you deny something one minute and

then the very next minute show that you

actually had another way believe it? In

other words, the way to put it is uh can

you deny something one minute and yet go

on to assume it the next minute which

means you end up borrowing from the

beliefs of other systems. Alistister McIntyre

McIntyre

a philosopher who says how do you deal

with people who've got these different

systems. One of the ways you can check

is if you have one set of beliefs and

you find yourself constantly having to

borrow ideas from another set of beliefs

and maybe your set of beliefs isn't just

isn't really working. Uh one more is are

you willing to embrace the conclusions

of your beliefs the logical conclusions

of your beliefs and if not why not?

So you see the point is that even though

we can't prove absolutely everything in

our set of beliefs to people who have

got other beliefs, we can compare them.

What I'm going to do the next several

weeks is I'm going to say here are a

number of things that you have got to uh

uh a number of things that you have to

have in order to live. You need to have

a meaning in life. You need to have a

way of handling suffering. You need to

have a strong identity. You need to have

happiness and and and and uh

satisfaction in life. You can't live

without these things. How is your set of

beliefs doing? I'm going to compare how

your beliefs are doing with what

Christianity offers. And arguably

Christianity gives you resources for

those things that are unequaled. So

instead of the next four or five times

we meet together, uh eventually I'd like

to give you evidences and arguments, but

that's not how it should start. The

reason you got smart people that come

down on both sides of this, smart people

who believe and smart people who don't

believe, is because the process is

complex and it's a matter of comparing

your sets of beliefs. I want you to

think about what you believe

and compare it to Christian beliefs

in how the two sets of beliefs do with

accounting for reality and helping you

face suffering and giving you an

identity, which is how you're supposed

to test these things.

Last idea. Um

Jesus Christ was once approached by a man

man

who said, "Would you come heal my son?" And

And

Jesus said, "Sure, I'd be happy to heal

your son if you believe."

And what the man said is,

crying out in desperation, he says, "I

believe. Help my unbelief."

Wow. There's an honest man. I believe. I

don't really believe. Say, you know, I

Jesus says, "Hey, if you believe, I'll

heal your son." I believe. I No, I don't

believe. I believe. Help my unbelief.

And guess what Jesus does? Does he say,

"I'm sorry. Not good enough. You need to

go to Tim Kelly's questioning

Christianity course.

You need to you need to get at least Oh,

you know, you just need a lot more

certainty. You got to get rid of these

doubts." No. What does he do? Some of

you know he heals the boy.

Now, what does that say? Two things.

Number one, coming to faith is a process.

process.

It's a process. And Jesus recognizes

that. But here's the other thing. The

faith that Christians are looking for is

not some pure perfect psychological certainty.

certainty.

Because at least in in the Christian

understanding of things, it's not the

quality of your faith that saves you,

the purity of your faith that saves you.

It's the object of your faith that saves

you. If you're about to fall off a cliff

and you just reach out scared to death

and grab a branch and it holds you up,

you're saved. Why?

What saved you? Was it the quality of

your faith? No. You weren't sure when

you grabbed the branch. You weren't

filled with certainty. You weren't sure.

But when you grab that branch, even

without a whole lot of perfect faith, it

saved you. Why? It's the object of your

faith, not the quality or purity of your

faith that saves you. And so the

Christian understanding of faith is it

is a process. It is messy. It is

complicated. You it is a process of

thinking and intuition. Yes, you can use

your reason and yes, you can use your

intuition, but when it all comes down to

it, the Christian understanding is it's

a commitment to Jesus that saves you,

not the quality of your faith. You don't

have to be perfect in all this. It's

messy and Jesus has mercy on those that doubt.

doubt.

>> Well, Tim, I like the way that you ended

things with that um a statement that

it's not about the

quality of our faith or the quality of

one's faith, but the object of one's

faith. Um you seem as someone very

confident in the object of your faith as

a Christian. Um, someone is asking, Tim,

do you ever have doubts about the

validity of Christianity?

>> Um, yeah, but here's the good thing is

my doubts uh they migrate.

What I mean to say is it's not the same

doubt year after year after year. Um,

it's like this. Look, if if uh if you

are going to hire somebody, I mean, I

don't want to do if you're going to hire

somebody, you have three candidates, you

use your reason to get to the place

where you decide which of the three

candidates is probably the best. You've

read the references, you've interviewed,

um are you 100% totally sure, without

any doubt that that person is going to

be perfect for the job? And the answer

is no, you can't be. Uh however

um if it is the right person in about 3

years or two years you will know that

that was really the right person. The

job's never been done better. The person

was even better than you thought blah

blah blah. So you you use your reason to

get to a place of maybe you say

probability but then it takes experience

to get you to certainty.

Um and so what happens is when you first

I'm trying to get that across to you

here. When you first you might say bite

on Christianity if you do bite on

Christianity no you don't have to have

this incredible in internal

psychological certainty that was the

purpose of my little talk there at the

end it takes time for you to find grow

in your certainty about um the things

you can experience and you know what you

can experience you can experience the

presence of God you can experience his

forgiveness you can experience his grace

you can experience the reality of Jesus

you can experience the reality of the

Holy Spirit so the things that you can

actually not just uh

infer from rationally but you can also

then commit and experience those things

no I don't have any doubts about but

when you say are there parts of the

Christian faith yes of course because

the Bible is a pretty long book and

there's lots and lots of teaching in it

and sometimes I say is that true I mean

there's two ways to doubt something one

is maybe I don't understand it right

maybe I don't get it. Maybe maybe I'm

not getting this right. The other

possibility is you say, "I don't like

this. In fact, I wish it wasn't true. It

doesn't feel credible to me." So, the

Christian faith, there's enough stuff in

the Bible that there's going to be

always things that you might wrestle

with that are very difficult. Uh some

which you don't know. Is it me? Is it is

it uh what is it? But I would say you're

talking about the core things. If you're

asking me personally the core things,

the reality of Christ, the reality of

the resurrection, those things, no,

there's not much doubt left. But it's

because it's like it's the way you

wouldn't have that much doubt in the

person if you hired the person. The

person was you were you were working

with that person day in and day out and

you just you just knew about their

character. It's like that.

>> That makes sense

to me. Everyone, half the room is like

um someone sent this in and I had to ab

I'm gonna have to abbreviate just it

just a little bit, but uh it it

resonates with me personally. Um so if

the Christian God really exists and is

omnipotent, why would he set the world

up in such a way that makes faith very

difficult and then subsequently condemn

skeptics and believers of other

religions? Why doesn't he help us out

given the gravity of this matter, given

that he supposedly loves us?

>> Yeah. Well, now be first of all, I do

think uh you could ask a bigger question

than that, of course, which is why

doesn't God just end history right now,

put everything right, get rid of all

suffering, reveal himself to everybody?

I don't know. And in some ways, that

question uh is that that's a subquest of

that bigger question. Why why does why

why hasn't God just said absolutely

everything right? And please let me

remind you of what Charles Taylor I use

this illustration tonight. What Charles

Taylor said is modern people have a

tendency to say because I can't see how

God could do that and still be just or

because I can't think of a good reason

why God would let that happen therefore

there can't be any. Um he said ancient

people would say if you have a god big

enough to be mad at because he's all

powerful and all wise. If you have a god

big enough to be mad at that he doesn't

fix things and you've got a god big

enough to have some reasons why he

doesn't fix things that you might not

know. You can't have it both ways.

If he if if he's great enough for you to

be mad at, he's great enough to know

something you don't. and in uh so I

don't have a good answer to that

question because from my h limited human

vantage point some of that sounds

unfair. Nevertheless, uh I can I can

kind of get there. I can kind of say

I'll just tell you two or three things. Um

salvation is through Jesus Christ. We

Christians believe because it's by grace.

grace.

Um other religions say if you're a good

person then you can go to heaven. And a

lot of people tell me, "Well, why can't

all good people go to heaven? Why is it

only Christians?"

And one of the answers is, "Well, if

only good people go to heaven, that

leaves us bad people out." And I'm one

of them. And I'm not exaggerating. And

I'm being falsely modest. Um Jesus

Christ says, "If you believe in me, no

matter who you are, you go to heaven."

And so every single approach to

salvation pretty much leaves somebody

out. Even those of you, by the way, I've

had a lot of people who said to me, "Oh,

I believe everybody goes to heaven." I

say, "So Hitler, oh well,

you know, see basically everybody wants

somebody not to go to heaven and

somebody to go to heaven because

everybody has a sense of justice and so

does God. God's got to have the mo the

most finely tuned sense of justice of

all. So as soon as you start talking

about who goes to heaven, who's not,

it's not fair, they don't get a chance

of it. Look, at some point there's a cut

off. Somebody some pe if there's an

afterlife and everybody understands and

there's justice that means some people

are in, some people are out, but we

leave that up to God. Anyway, I'm I'm

just letting the the bigger question is

does he

does do we allow God to have some

ability to be wise beyond what we can uh

fathom? And I think the answer has to be

yes. Or else you're really not allowing

for the very existence of God, which of

course we already said tonight is a

matter of faith.

>> Okay. A lot of questions are coming in

about the validity or reliability, I

should say, the reliability of the Bible

since the Bible uh the Bible is um where

the Christian belief stems. So basically

to pair down a lot of the questions, can

you prove the validity of the Bible?

>> Yeah. Now you're making me go uh this is

a series

and in fact I suppose one of the things

I wrestle with the most tonight was not

going very far. Uh in other words

tonight all I try to do is I say please

do not believe that you can't that you

will never become a Christian unless

somebody can prove that there is a god

and prove that Christianity is true and

prove that the Bible's true. I mean, my

point here tonight was to say nobody can

prove wherever you're standing, you're

you're standing in a set of beliefs that

you can't prove either. Now, therefore,

if I can't utterly prove these things,

that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be

considering what the Christian beliefs

are, and you should be comparing them to

your beliefs.

Uh, in this case with the Bible though,

if you're willing to come back and

eventually we get there, here's what I

would tell you how I understand that.

If you believe that the gospels

are historically reliable and that they

basically give you a picture of Jesus

Christ and what he did. Now, how do you

establish that? That takes historical

work that I just can't do right here.

But I I I would say you can do that. You

can ask historians, does the Bible have

the earmarks of an eyewitness account?

Does the Bible have the earmarks of a

reliable history? I'm not asking you

whether it's infallible or inherent. I'm

just saying, do you have evidence for

that? I'm I would say yes, and I could

make that case. Then once you have the

Gospels as just a historically reliable

account of the life of Jesus, then

you've just got to figure out what you

think about Jesus.

At that point, you're not talking about

the Bible anymore. you're talking about

Jesus. Uh, let's just assume that Jesus

did say most of what the Bible says he

said. Let's just assume that Jesus did

most of what the Bible says he did.

There's plenty of evidence that he did.

Then you you figure out who he was. And

if you decide, nah, I don't know who he

is or he was just a nice teacher, then

you don't have to worry about the rest

of the Bible. But if you decide, wow, I

don't know how to explain him. I don't

know how to explain his character, his

claims. I don't know how to explain the

accounts of the resurrection. If you

decide, I think I do believe in Jesus,

then the rest of the Bible comes along

with that because Jesus trusted the

Bible. He he quoted every 10 things he

says. He quotes the Bible. He bases his

life on the Bible. So, if you're going

to ask me how would you prove the

reliability of the Bible, I would say I

wouldn't. I would show you the

historical reliability of the Gospels.

I'd show you Jesus. And if you decide

you want to go with him, that you trust

that and you believe in that he's

compelling to you, then that brings you

back around to what's his view of the

Bible. And that would be the order in

which I'd go.

>> Getting multiple questions about

evolution. I'm going to go with

>> about evolution. >> Okay.

>> Okay.

Doesn't the fact that love exists that

we can experience love isn't our

capacity for love itself because we have

evolved under the theory of evolution.

>> The secular understanding of love is it

just a chemical reaction in your brain

that helped your ancestor survive.

>> You don't believe that. You don't

believe that's all love is. You believe

it's more than that. And yet that means

you're taking a leap of faith in which

you're in a sense contradicting your

secular view of the world. Uh Tom

Stppard, you know, the famous

playwright, he did uh Rosen Cransson

Gilder Stern are dead and he he wrote um

Shakespeare in love. He won an Oscar for

that. He's a great playwright. He just

recently had a play here called The Hard

Problem. It was playing at Lincoln

Center. It just closed at Christmas. I

didn't get a chance to go see it, but I

have read it. And his whole point is

that very thing. He says, if you if

you're a secular person and you believe

that the you feel the the reason the

evolutionary biologist says the reason

love feels significant to you is it

helps somebody it helped your ancestors

survive and it's a way for you to pass

on your genes.

And that's the reason it feels that

significant. Not that it is that

significant. It's just a it's just

chemistry. In the play, Tom Stoppper

does a really good job of saying every

person who says that's all it is then

turns around and doesn't live the way

that's all it is. Always treats love as

more significant than that. Which shows

you're doing a leap of faith. It also

shows I think that there is an

inongruency between what you believe

about the universe and what you actually

know deep in your heart. That' be one of

my arguments against being a secular

person and why you would say

Christianity can account for why you

feel love is that is that significant

Christian if you're a Christian then you

know we were created by a triune God

we Christianity believes the father son

and the holy spirit have been loving

each other for all eternity and

therefore love is the very heart of the

universe and that we were created out of

love and that's the reason why we feel

love is so significant so I would I

would just ask you to consider Whether

your idea that it's just a chemical

reaction to help your ancestor survive

and therefore is not obligatory on you

at all. You realize that if that just

helped my ancestor survive, it might be

practical for me, but it's not

obligatory. Love is not obligatory in

the secular viewpoint. Yet you feel it

is why Nishi would say because you're

just a, you know, you're a hungover

Christian and you don't know it. I would

say because deep in your heart you know

what the Bible tells you about the

nature of things.

Um Tim, you high you made a claim that

both secularism and the Christian faith

are based on faith.

>> Um but yet you said we can also

rationally interrogate our beliefs. Um

someone saying that you mentioned the

Christian set of beliefs as providing a

list of things such as satisfaction, a

way to deal with suffering, etc.

>> That other belief sets may not provide.

But isn't this even a more emotionally

biased way to look at a set of beliefs? Um

yeah

here here look look at this way if I if

I um if I start to um if I show you for

example that Christianity no I get it

and by the way I I agree with the with

the uh gist of this question. If I show

you that a Christian Christianity gives

you a better way of understanding love,

a better way, a better basis for doing justice,

justice,

a better uh foundation for a solid

identity that you where you really

really do have a sense of self and worth.

worth.

You say, "Well, that doesn't prove

Christianity is true. It just proves Christianity.

Christianity.

All it proves is it would be great if it

was true."

See why why would you sit? You remember

what I said about um

background beliefs? I'll give you a

couple of examples maybe. Well, uh it's

not exactly answering this question, so

I better wait. Remember I told you that

we're not rational totally. We have

always have background beliefs and the

background beliefs very often color the

way in which we or it affects the way in

which we are looking at arguments.

Sometimes two people look at the same

argument. One says it's compelling, one

says it's not. And it's because the

background beliefs are different. So for

example, if your background belief is

that Christianity basically is bad for

you, it's bad for you. I've seen it be

bad for people. It does this. It does

that. It does this. It does that. Okay.

So you come in here and I make a I make

a an argument for the for the

resurrection of Jesus Christ. Are you

going to find that compelling or not?

Probably not.

Even though I think it would be

wonderfully compelling because I'm

making it and I think it's wonderful, but you may not. Why? Because your

but you may not. Why? Because your background belief is that you know what,

background belief is that you know what, Christianity is really bad for you. But

Christianity is really bad for you. But what if when you compare how

what if when you compare how Christianity gives you meaning,

Christianity gives you meaning, identity,

identity, uh a way of dealing with suffering, and

uh a way of dealing with suffering, and you say, "Actually, I never thought

you say, "Actually, I never thought about that. I had no idea. You know

about that. I had no idea. You know what? Christianity isn't so bad. I don't

what? Christianity isn't so bad. I don't know if it's true, but it's actually

know if it's true, but it's actually pretty good." Well, it's really pretty

pretty good." Well, it's really pretty good. Wow. It would actually be great if

good. Wow. It would actually be great if it was true. Then and only then, I

it was true. Then and only then, I believe, once that background belief is

believe, once that background belief is taken away, the background belief that

taken away, the background belief that it's really bad for you, unless I get

it's really bad for you, unless I get rid of that, I don't think you're going

rid of that, I don't think you're going to be objective. You still may say, I

to be objective. You still may say, I see all of your arguments for why it's

see all of your arguments for why it's true and I it's not compelling. Okay,

true and I it's not compelling. Okay, this is what we're here for. We're here

this is what we're here for. We're here to talk and to question and to be

to talk and to question and to be respectful of each other. But I would

respectful of each other. But I would say unless I get rid of that background

say unless I get rid of that background belief which is really prevalent in

belief which is really prevalent in places like New York City, I don't think

places like New York City, I don't think you're going to be able to get a give a

you're going to be able to get a give a fair hearing to the uh the more rational

fair hearing to the uh the more rational arguments. So that's actually a great

arguments. So that's actually a great question because you're you're you're

question because you're you're you're it's fair to say if that's what you're

it's fair to say if that's what you're going to do for a while that doesn't

going to do for a while that doesn't actually prove Christianity is true. No,

actually prove Christianity is true. No, but it puts you in a position where I

but it puts you in a position where I think I'm I'm I'm peeling away some

think I'm I'm I'm peeling away some background beliefs that might create a

background beliefs that might create a bias.

bias. Uh, first of all, thank you so much for

Uh, first of all, thank you so much for all the questions. Uh, I love Tim. I

all the questions. Uh, I love Tim. I think people really want to talk to you.

think people really want to talk to you. People are sending really large

People are sending really large paragraphs and these are great, but a

paragraphs and these are great, but a little hard to read as quickly as I'd

little hard to read as quickly as I'd like to. So, if you wouldn't mind, um,

like to. So, if you wouldn't mind, um, pairing them down just a a bit. Um,

pairing them down just a a bit. Um, also, uh, I know it's kind of echoey,

also, uh, I know it's kind of echoey, and I want Tim to be able to understand

and I want Tim to be able to understand what I'm saying. So, um, but thank you,

what I'm saying. So, um, but thank you, and this is another reason to join us on

and this is another reason to join us on the fifth floor afterward to talk more.

the fifth floor afterward to talk more. Um, uh, the next question, Tim,

Um, uh, the next question, Tim, following up on what you're saying is,

following up on what you're saying is, uh, you mentioned background beliefs. Is

uh, you mentioned background beliefs. Is there any reliable way to discover what

there any reliable way to discover what my background beliefs are?

my background beliefs are? Okay.

Okay. Just dialogue and talking. Um,

Just dialogue and talking. Um, I would say that

I would say that probably not on the internet.

It's I think I think face-to-face discussions I mean some of you know that

discussions I mean some of you know that this this very the very way in which we

this this very the very way in which we um

um structure this event and how you can

structure this event and how you can come to it is trying to get friends

come to it is trying to get friends basically to come together. uh and uh we

basically to come together. uh and uh we we we actually do think that most

we we actually do think that most everybody I know who has uh made any

everybody I know who has uh made any kind of progress in faith matters

kind of progress in faith matters usually happens in the context of

usually happens in the context of relationship. So let me give you an

relationship. So let me give you an example though of three background

example though of three background beliefs. These are probably not the kind

beliefs. These are probably not the kind of background beliefs you're thinking

of background beliefs you're thinking about, but some years ago, there was a

about, but some years ago, there was a man who came to Redeemer Church. Um, and

man who came to Redeemer Church. Um, and had had given up Christianity.

had had given up Christianity. And when he came, he listened to the

And when he came, he listened to the preaching. I was back then I was the

preaching. I was back then I was the only I was the preacher, the main

only I was the preacher, the main preacher. And um one day we had a long

preacher. And um one day we had a long talk and then we had a series of talks

talk and then we had a series of talks and he realized that the preaching had

and he realized that the preaching had stripped away some of his background

stripped away some of his background beliefs

beliefs and uh here's what we here's three

and uh here's what we here's three things that he had grown up in the

things that he had grown up in the Christian church and he realized he had

Christian church and he realized he had picked up three beliefs that had when he

picked up three beliefs that had when he moved to New York it completely the all

moved to New York it completely the all those three beliefs um basically um made

those three beliefs um basically um made Christianity seem implausible. Here's

Christianity seem implausible. Here's why. The first belief he grew up with

why. The first belief he grew up with was and he been he said is that if if

was and he been he said is that if if you meet an atheist or an an agnostic, a

you meet an atheist or an an agnostic, a person who's not a Christian, that

person who's not a Christian, that person will be really creepy

person will be really creepy because secular people atheist people

because secular people atheist people are really bad people. So you see, he

are really bad people. So you see, he was raised in a very conservative um

was raised in a very conservative um environment. So the first belief he had

environment. So the first belief he had was that secular people will be really

was that secular people will be really creepy. The second thing is if you ever

creepy. The second thing is if you ever have sex outside marriage, you're going

have sex outside marriage, you're going to feel so bad and guilty and shameful.

to feel so bad and guilty and shameful. And the third belief he'd been taught or

And the third belief he'd been taught or given was that if you're if you're uh

given was that if you're if you're uh living a good Christian life, God would

living a good Christian life, God would only let wouldn't really let anything

only let wouldn't really let anything bad happen to you. Not really bad, maybe

bad happen to you. Not really bad, maybe a little bad. Teach you a lesson. you

a little bad. Teach you a lesson. you know, you know, you break your leg and

know, you know, you break your leg and you lo and you miss the appointment, but

you lo and you miss the appointment, but then you get in the hospital, you meet a

then you get in the hospital, you meet a great nurse and you marry her and you

great nurse and you marry her and you live happily ever after. So, the the

live happily ever after. So, the the three the three background beliefs were

three the three background beliefs were uh non-Christian people are creepy. If

uh non-Christian people are creepy. If you ever have sex outside marriage,

you ever have sex outside marriage, you'll feel horrible and um God will

you'll feel horrible and um God will never let anything bad happen to you. He

never let anything bad happen to you. He got to New York and all those background

got to New York and all those background beliefs played havoc in his life because

beliefs played havoc in his life because first of all, met all kinds of

first of all, met all kinds of non-Christians who were better people

non-Christians who were better people than the people he grew up with.

than the people he grew up with. Secondly, he did have sex outside of

Secondly, he did have sex outside of marriage. And it felt really good. And

marriage. And it felt really good. And then number three,

then number three, some really bad things happened to him

some really bad things happened to him that he said, "I didn't think God would

that he said, "I didn't think God would ever let something like that happen to a

ever let something like that happen to a good Christian." And as a result,

good Christian." And as a result, Christianity seemed like completely

Christianity seemed like completely stupid. It just didn't make any sense to

stupid. It just didn't make any sense to him. And when he came here, he said the

him. And when he came here, he said the preaching showed him that those three

preaching showed him that those three beliefs are not part of Christianity at

beliefs are not part of Christianity at all. he had grown up. It was implicit in

all. he had grown up. It was implicit in the in his Christian community. He grew

the in his Christian community. He grew up in those three beliefs. People talked

up in those three beliefs. People talked about that. They taught that. They said

about that. They taught that. They said that. When he got here, he realized that

that. When he got here, he realized that none in fact, I think, by the way, I'll

none in fact, I think, by the way, I'll just let you know since I was the

just let you know since I was the preacher that the Bible actually teaches

preacher that the Bible actually teaches directly against all three of those

directly against all three of those things. It doesn't say you'll if you

things. It doesn't say you'll if you have sex outside marriage, you'll

have sex outside marriage, you'll necessarily feel bad. It doesn't say

necessarily feel bad. It doesn't say that bad things can't happen to really,

that bad things can't happen to really, really good people. Look at the book of

really good people. Look at the book of Job. It doesn't say any of those things.

Job. It doesn't say any of those things. And he said when those things got pulled

And he said when those things got pulled away, I he had to go back and look at

away, I he had to go back and look at Christianity again because when he got

Christianity again because when he got here and those three those three beliefs

here and those three those three beliefs let him down and made all of

let him down and made all of Christianity looks stupid. Once he

Christianity looks stupid. Once he realized that that wasn't part of

realized that that wasn't part of Christianity and they weren't right,

Christianity and they weren't right, Christianity started looking good again.

Christianity started looking good again. Now I'm not tell Well, by the way, if

Now I'm not tell Well, by the way, if there's anybody if the shoe fits, wear

there's anybody if the shoe fits, wear it right now. uh if there's any of those

it right now. uh if there's any of those I I you'd be surprised how often people

I I you'd be surprised how often people who come up from very conservative

who come up from very conservative backgrounds bring these kinds of beliefs

backgrounds bring these kinds of beliefs with them thinking it's part of

with them thinking it's part of Christianity when it's not and then what

Christianity when it's not and then what it does is it eats your faith out the to

it does is it eats your faith out the to find out what those might be takes time

find out what those might be takes time to find out what those things might be

to find out what those things might be reading discussing with people um but of

reading discussing with people um but of course by the way I want you to know

course by the way I want you to know that you can be a Christian and have

that you can be a Christian and have your life very distorted by background

your life very distorted by background beliefs that are not really Christian

beliefs that are not really Christian teachings at all. And so, uh, I would

teachings at all. And so, uh, I would just say it happens in community and it

just say it happens in community and it happens in relationships, and those are

happens in relationships, and those are so much more important than, uh,

so much more important than, uh, anything else.

Really love this question. I'm not a Christian, but I have no issue with

Christian, but I have no issue with believing in God. My whole life, I have

believing in God. My whole life, I have felt that I have I have a strong faith

felt that I have I have a strong faith in God. Why is this not sufficient? Why

in God. Why is this not sufficient? Why must I believe in Jesus to be a

must I believe in Jesus to be a believer?

Well, um, well, it depends on who Jesus is. When you say, "Why is it necessary?"

is. When you say, "Why is it necessary?" Um, if God sent Jesus to Earth, think

Um, if God sent Jesus to Earth, think about this. I mean, in some ways, I love

about this. I mean, in some ways, I love the question, too. But it's actually the

the question, too. But it's actually the easiest question I was asked tonight.

easiest question I was asked tonight. That's why I really love this question.

That's why I really love this question. Okay. Point is, if you believe in God,

Okay. Point is, if you believe in God, great. Then you need to find out whether

great. Then you need to find out whether God sent Jesus, his son, to Earth.

God sent Jesus, his son, to Earth. If he did,

If he did, then it is necessary to believe in him.

then it is necessary to believe in him. It's if he's the son of God, it's

It's if he's the son of God, it's necessary. If he's not the son of God,

necessary. If he's not the son of God, it's not. So, which means you just need

it's not. So, which means you just need to check check it out. That's what we're

to check check it out. That's what we're here for is to look at the evidence and

here for is to look at the evidence and look at the at the text and that sort of

look at the at the text and that sort of thing. That's all. So, uh now when I

thing. That's all. So, uh now when I guess I could that's the objective

guess I could that's the objective answer, which is if I believe in God,

answer, which is if I believe in God, why do I have to believe in Jesus? The

why do I have to believe in Jesus? The answer is if God sent Jesus and he

answer is if God sent Jesus and he really is the son of God, then of course

really is the son of God, then of course you need to it's necessary.

you need to it's necessary. Subjectively, I'll just say this, though

Subjectively, I'll just say this, though I'm sure I'll get back to it in the

I'm sure I'll get back to it in the future. I can't just love God in the

future. I can't just love God in the abstract. If you just tell me love God,

abstract. If you just tell me love God, I can say,

how do I do that? If I believe that Jesus Christ was the

If I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who who emptied himself of

son of God who who emptied himself of his glory that he was he was living this

his glory that he was he was living this this incredible life and he came down

this incredible life and he came down became a human being was rejected was

became a human being was rejected was tortured died on the cross for our sins.

tortured died on the cross for our sins. In other words, it takes a lot to

In other words, it takes a lot to believe that. But if you do believe that

believe that. But if you do believe that and you believe that he did that for

and you believe that he did that for you, then it's not that it evokes a love

you, then it's not that it evokes a love a sense of being loved and and a and a

a sense of being loved and and a and a and a love. And therefore I have to say

and a love. And therefore I have to say God subjectively God in the abstract

God subjectively God in the abstract doesn't do a thing for me.

doesn't do a thing for me. God

God being willing to involve himself in the

being willing to involve himself in the suffering in this world does. So

suffering in this world does. So subjectively that's why I think it's

subjectively that's why I think it's important to believe in Jesus.

important to believe in Jesus. Objectively I think you just have to

Objectively I think you just have to check out whether he really uh God

check out whether he really uh God actually sent him to earth as his son.

actually sent him to earth as his son. Um, so, so based on that, since it's

Um, so, so based on that, since it's really all about Jesus and you mentioned

really all about Jesus and you mentioned his life, his death, his resurrection,

his life, his death, his resurrection, uh, we actually got this question

uh, we actually got this question earlier, um, before this evening and it

earlier, um, before this evening and it relates to this, so I'd love to ask it.

relates to this, so I'd love to ask it. I like how this person words it. Um,

I like how this person words it. Um, this person says, "Are you 95% 99%

this person says, "Are you 95% 99% 99.99%

99.99% or fully 100% convinced that Jesus was

or fully 100% convinced that Jesus was truly resurrected in a supernatural

truly resurrected in a supernatural fashion as described in the Bible? And

fashion as described in the Bible? And if 100% why do you not allow for the

if 100% why do you not allow for the risk that a risk that you made a mistake

risk that a risk that you made a mistake in your analysis?

Well, no, that's great. That's a great question. Uh, you know, um,

question. Uh, you know, um, you do have to say

for example, uh, c can I prove that my wife is not a

c can I prove that my wife is not a Russian spy in incredibly deep cover?

Where are you? >> It's possible.

>> It's possible. >> I wondered occasionally.

>> I wondered occasionally. >> I didn't even see her there.

>> I didn't even see her there. >> Yeah, there she is. That's right. And

>> Yeah, there she is. That's right. And yeah, now she is Croatian.

yeah, now she is Croatian. So that's Eastern Europe. U the the uh

So that's Eastern Europe. U the the uh the reality is every in any philosophy

the reality is every in any philosophy class, they're going to tell you, "No,

class, they're going to tell you, "No, you can't be 100% sure that she's not a

you can't be 100% sure that she's not a Russian spy in deep cover." You can't.

But uh psychologically, emotionally, am I 100% sure she's not? Sure I am. Sure I

I 100% sure she's not? Sure I am. Sure I am. You know, right? Okay. So

am. You know, right? Okay. So rationally, can I be 100% sure? No.

rationally, can I be 100% sure? No. Emotionally in every other way, at least

Emotionally in every other way, at least the kind of certainty you need for life,

the kind of certainty you need for life, can I be? Yeah, of course I can be. Same

can I be? Yeah, of course I can be. Same with Jesus. Sorry. When it comes to the

with Jesus. Sorry. When it comes to the resurrection,

resurrection, uh can you be 100% rationally sure? No.

uh can you be 100% rationally sure? No. Of course not. Because first of all, you

Of course not. Because first of all, you can't be 100% rationally sure of

can't be 100% rationally sure of anything. Didn't you ever see the

anything. Didn't you ever see the Matrix?

Matrix? How do you know that you're not in a vat

How do you know that you're not in a vat somewhere with these things coming out

somewhere with these things coming out of your back? I mean, that's Ludwick

of your back? I mean, that's Ludwick Witkinstein. That's the every every

Witkinstein. That's the every every flosser worth his salt or her salt is

flosser worth his salt or her salt is going to show you that you can't be

going to show you that you can't be rationally sure of anything completely.

rationally sure of anything completely. Um, and and I want you to know I had

Um, and and I want you to know I had thyroid cancer

thyroid cancer 17 years ago. And during that time, the

17 years ago. And during that time, the only time in the last 50 years that I

only time in the last 50 years that I actually was laid up without doing

actually was laid up without doing anything for about four weeks, and I

anything for about four weeks, and I read a big book on the resurrection by

read a big book on the resurrection by NT Wright called the resurrection of the

NT Wright called the resurrection of the son of God. It's the evidence of the

son of God. It's the evidence of the resurrection, 900 pages or so, a best

resurrection, 900 pages or so, a best book on the resurrection done by a

book on the resurrection done by a historian in the last 100 years. And I

historian in the last 100 years. And I realized as I read it, my rational

realized as I read it, my rational certainty was going up. It was so

certainty was going up. It was so convincing and so compelling. And I saw

convincing and so compelling. And I saw evidence I'd never seen before. And

evidence I'd never seen before. And probably my rational certainty was was

probably my rational certainty was was advancing by reading that book. But can

advancing by reading that book. But can it go to 100%? Of course it can't be.

it go to 100%? Of course it can't be. But for all intents and purposes, I can

But for all intents and purposes, I can be every bit as sure that Jesus was

be every bit as sure that Jesus was raised from the dead as I can be that my

raised from the dead as I can be that my wife is not a Russian spy in deep cover.

wife is not a Russian spy in deep cover. Thank you so much, Tim. Unfortunately,

Thank you so much, Tim. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have left for

that's all the time we have left for questions. Thank you so much to everyone

questions. Thank you so much to everyone who sent them in. We'll share the rest

who sent them in. We'll share the rest of them with Tim. Also again immediately

of them with Tim. Also again immediately after this we invite all of you please

after this we invite all of you please to join us on the fifth floor for food

to join us on the fifth floor for food drinks and also um we know there's so

drinks and also um we know there's so many questions to come in but in

many questions to come in but in addition to this questioning

addition to this questioning Christianity series redeemer also hosts

Christianity series redeemer also hosts questioning Christianity groups these

questioning Christianity groups these are groups for eight weeks they're

are groups for eight weeks they're peer-led discussion groups that are that

peer-led discussion groups that are that will be launching throughout Manhattan

will be launching throughout Manhattan about four of them in various locations

about four of them in various locations in the city and we have one that's going

in the city and we have one that's going to be starting on Friday evenings on

to be starting on Friday evenings on March 22nd on the Upper East Side. So if

March 22nd on the Upper East Side. So if you're interested in continuing the

you're interested in continuing the conversation even beyond this with other

conversation even beyond this with other peers that are exploring, we'd love for

peers that are exploring, we'd love for you to check that out on the fifth

you to check that out on the fifth floor. You can also talk to one of these

floor. You can also talk to one of these questioning Christian group leaders at a

questioning Christian group leaders at a table upstairs. Um so please do that.

table upstairs. Um so please do that. And also Ivan Riasco's artwork is

And also Ivan Riasco's artwork is upstairs. And before we end, uh Tim, can

upstairs. And before we end, uh Tim, can you give us a teaser about next week?

you give us a teaser about next week? It's about the subject of meaning.

It's about the subject of meaning. >> First week, uh the second week is going

>> First week, uh the second week is going to be meaning in particular. Um, how do

to be meaning in particular. Um, how do you get a meaning that suffering can't

you get a meaning that suffering can't take away? A meaning in life as

take away? A meaning in life as suffering can't take away. Uh, if your

suffering can't take away. Uh, if your meaning in life is your job, I can tell

meaning in life is your job, I can tell you right now, suffering can take that

you right now, suffering can take that away. But how do you get one that

away. But how do you get one that enables you to face anything? uh and

enables you to face anything? uh and that will be uh we're beginning that

that will be uh we're beginning that series that I mentioned before in which

series that I mentioned before in which we're comparing the way for example we

we're comparing the way for example we will look at how Buddhism, Hinduism,

will look at how Buddhism, Hinduism, secularism,

secularism, Christianity, the the various ways

Christianity, the the various ways people give you uh handles for dealing

people give you uh handles for dealing with suffering and we're going to

with suffering and we're going to compare them and that'll be next week.

compare them and that'll be next week. >> Great. Thank you so much Tim and thank

>> Great. Thank you so much Tim and thank you all again for coming. Hope to see

you all again for coming. Hope to see you on the fifth floor. Have a good

you on the fifth floor. Have a good night.

night. Thank you for listening today. Gospel

Thank you for listening today. Gospel and Life's Ministry is supported by

and Life's Ministry is supported by generous partners all over the world.

generous partners all over the world. Your gifts allow us to share the gospel

Your gifts allow us to share the gospel message with millions of people through

message with millions of people through our podcast, radio, and other channels,

our podcast, radio, and other channels, including here on YouTube. We're seeing

including here on YouTube. We're seeing God change lives through the increasing

God change lives through the increasing reach of this ministry. So, thank you

reach of this ministry. So, thank you for your part in it. If you'd like to

for your part in it. If you'd like to make a gift today, go to

make a gift today, go to gospelinlife.com/youtube

gospelinlife.com/youtube [Music]

[Music] and we'll send you one of my books as

and we'll send you one of my books as thanks for your gift. Thank you again

thanks for your gift. Thank you again for your generous support because the

for your generous support because the gospel really does change everything.

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:Questioning Christianity Ep 1: Faith & Proof – Timothy Keller