Tim Keller is definitely influenced by C.S. Lewis .Tim answers skeptics almost the same way Lewis did. People do have objections to Christianity and I hope they find their answers in this book. I liked the way it was written. Tim gives great reasons for Gods' existence in today's society. People are always looking for God in their lives. If you are looking for God in your life may I suggest a book entitledThe Enlightenment, What God Told Me After One Million Prayers: A Message for Everyone. I believe you will love it!

Tim Keller's recent book The Reason for God has received much critical and popular acclaim, landing on several bestseller lists (including Amazon and the New York Times). It's not hard to see why: Keller is a great communicator who writes with an engaging style that is personal and accessible yet still culturally, philosophically, and academically informed. Keller is also effective because he doesn't come across as writing "from above" but is writing from the trenches of spiritual and intellectual struggles prevalent in New York City. I had a difficult time writing this review because while I really enjoyed the book, I found it to be lacking in some areas. Is it a good book? Absolutely. Is it a great book? I might have to read it again to answer that accurately. For Keller's audience and purposes, I do think that it is a very good, solid book.

The first half of the book is devoted to answering some of the most frequent questions of skeptics of Christianity, including topics like science, exclusivity, suffering, judgment, injustice, and human freedom. The second half is devoted to reasons for the Christian faith. I thought Keller is most effective in the first half, especially the chapters on suffering and injustice. He does a great job engaging the postmodern reader, and I especially appreciated Keller's critique against the prevalent fallacies of "strong rationalism." He argues that skeptics' logic and reasoning against Christianity should also be applied to their own belief system (often their reasoning against Christianity is through "strong rationalism"). By doing so, the skeptics should discover that their system is not as solid as it seems.

Some aspects of Keller's work seemed incomplete - not that I expected it to be perfect of course. However, I don't think these are "make or break" issues, and for what I believe Keller's intent to be, are not major concerns for me. But I would like to attempt to flesh them out a little bit here. I do so mindful of Keller's encouragement to "major on the majors" of faith first and foremost, agreeing with him loosely that only after the foundations of the faith are wrestled with and accepted do the "minors" take on larger significance.

Keller argues using a "probability" perspective (mainly in Chapter 8, "The Clues of God") - while the Christian God cannot be absolutely proven, Keller says, He is the most probable answer to many of life's questions. While Keller presents good arguments for the existence of a god, he does not make the leap to reason from a god to the one true God. Thus, I found the name of the book to be inaccurate - Keller does not really give "The Reason" for God, but provides a roundabout argument to why God is the best probable answer.

Another of these issues was Keller's approach to defining sin, as he does not discuss sin in legal or covenental terms, but instead in relationship terms. For example, contrast the Westminster Shorter Catechism's explanation of sin with Keller's (based on Kierkegaard's):

WSC question 14: "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God."

Keller: "Sin is the despairing refusal to find your deepest identity in your relationship and service to God. Sin is seeking to become oneself, to get an identity, apart from him." (p 162)

1 John 3:4: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

While Keller isn't explicitly wrong here, and I agree with his later discussion of the first commandment, I'm not totally on board with his discussion of sin. While Keller does not necessarily present explicitly wrong ideas regarding this and other crucial Christian truths, he seems to present incomplete ideas. For example, he focuses on the atonement as primarily a loving act of God - which is true, but incomplete without explaining the need for sinners to be justified and reconciled before a Holy Judge (i.e. penal substitution).

I also found Keller's discussion about forgiveness (primarily using Bonhoeffer's perspective on forgiveness) to be generally unhelpful (p 191ff). Keller writes that "everyone who forgives someone bears the other's sins. On the Cross we see God doing visibly and cosmically what every human being must do to forgive someone, though on an infinitely greater scale" (p 192). But isn't Christ the only sin-bearer, the once-for-all, sufficient, perfect, atoning sacrifice? We forgive because Christ forgave us, not because we are fellow sin bearers. I agree with Keller when he says that "it is divine forgiveness that is the ultimate ground and resource for the human" (p. 193). But without delving into this perspective on forgiveness more, Keller leaves the reader without a full explanation of the relation of human forgiveness to divine.

Finally, Keller hints at a non-literal or poetic interpretation of the Genesis 1-2 creation narrative, but doesn't really come out and say which he holds to. While I don't think it's necessary for him to do so in the book, he does comes across as uncomfortably accommodating to evolution (theistic evolution, not naturalist evolution).

That said, my overall point here is that though Keller's work might raise questions for some believers, I think it raises more and better questions (i.e. those of eternal significance) for skeptics. Further, Keller has a large, thriving church where he preaches the Gospel clearly and where he does not try to lure "seekers" in with gimmicks and flashiness, but is instead faithful to the Word of God and the Gospel of Christ - and this Word has not returned void.

I realize that my review is weighted toward the negative. Am I being overly critical or nit-picky? Perhaps, though my intentions are by no means malicious. Am I in a place to criticize a widely popular pastor laboring for the Gospel in one of the most anti-Gospel areas of the country? Maybe not, but I also don't want to quietly or even blindly endorse Keller's work just because of his immense popularity. It is a good book, and my biggest reason for it not being a great book is because of Keller's incomplete explanations. I did enjoy the book.

I first came across Tim Keller when I heard an mp3 of him speaking at the 2006 Desiring God National Conference. The subject was `The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Post-modern World". Keller struck me as highly intelligent, well read, and an excellent thinker in general. His foundation and argument for an `exclusive' Christianity was extremely refreshing and well thought out. In this volume, The Reason for God, Keller has constructed water-tight arguments for the Christian faith, as well as highly logical and intelligent answers to common objections to Christianity.


Part 1 of the book is sub-titled `The Leap of Doubt'. Keller answers the 7 most common moral and philosophical objections to Christianity. These are:


1. There Can't be Just One Religion

2. How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?

3. Christianity is a Straightjacket

4. The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice

5. How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?

6. Science Has Disproved Christianity

7. You Can't Take the Bible Literally


Keller's experience in answering these questions is obvious. He is head pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York. In what is generally thought of as the bastion of secularism and modernism, Keller planted and grew a church which, today, has over 5,000 regular attendees. He approaches each objection carefully and considerately. Keller is no Dawkins; he is considerate and understanding of the other side of the argument. His logic and clear thinking, though, exposes the flaws and fallacies which are pertained in many of the assumptions behind these objections.


The second part is called `The Reasons for Faith'. Chapters are as follows:


1. The Clues to God

2. The Knowledge of God

3. The Problem

4. Religion and the Gospel

5. The (True) Story of the Cross

6. The Reality of the Resurrection

7. The Dance of God


Keller, here, lays down solid philosophical and logical foundations for why Christianity makes sense and why believing in God is, in fact, a fairly reasonable thing. Broadly, the reasonableness of faith is supported here. Keller, though, does set out to try and prove God exists. He states explicitly that he cannot do that. He says:


"We should not try to "look into the sun" as it were, demanding irrefutable proofs for God. Instead we should "look at what the sun shows us." Which account of the world has the most "explanatory power" to make sense of what we see in the world and in ourselves?"


Indeed, what Keller sets out to do is to explain why Christianity does provide the best and most convincing answers to the big questions. Keller is one of a band of evangelical Christian preachers and writers who invite, and force, Christians and skeptics to use their minds. This book is an excellent example of this. The writing style is accessible to almost anyone. The book is well researched and well constructed. It is written for skeptics and non-believers. It will challenge them to think hard before dismissing Christianity. Similarly, the book is an invaluable tool for Christians who wish to better understand their faith and the reasons for it. It will also provide believers with a solid apologetic foundation with which to defend their faith. Keller's approach is summed up in this passage:


"Whether you consider yourself a believer or a skeptic, I invite you to seek [honestly] and to grow in an understanding of the nature of your own doubts. The results will exceed anything you can imagine."


This book is great. A must-read for those in both camps.

It starts strongly with the almost paradoxical problem that the special grace offered by God through Jesus requires substantial reflection and justification when compared to the acts-based grace of other religions. I wrote paradoxical because in Judaism, acts matter, what you believe is secondary, nice, but not damning by absence. Jews think of this as superior to Christianity, but it allows very sloppy thinking, which the carefulness of Keller shows.

The highlight of the book is really on pages 58-62. These words would and will turn many thoughtful non-Christians into acolytes.

If I could add one thing to the early text, it would be a reference to Gödel's Incompleteness theorem. Most people think it means that nothing humans conjure contains the all truth or all causes. In effect, everything is faulty: so your belief is just as valid as my belief - another argument for relativity or nihilism. However, what Incompleteness really implies is that there is a reality out there, outside our closed thoughts, and that reality may just be god: a wonderful belief that rests on extremely solid, non-religious ground: a real proof no different than vertical angles are congruent in plane geometry.

At last, here is a crisp intellectual reply to the challenges raised by secular, humanist and atheistic thinkers against Christian doctrine and belief. Tim Keller addresses their most common and pointed questions in an eloquent, firm and thoughtful way. Best of all, he does so without the rancor, sarcasm and arrogance that have typified so many of the challengers themselves. He invites people to seek the truth, and offers solid, sensible supporting points for each argument.

He readily admits the profound harm and mistakes that have been made by those claiming to be Christians who act contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the early church. By drawing a distinction to clarify the true message and beliefs of the faith, he dispels multiple misinterpretations and misconceptions about Christianity. His moderate voice of love and tolerance towards others has already led so many people to think through the profound implications of their belief systems in Manhattan. This book reflects his decades of street-level experience in New York.

Mr. Keller's reasoned approach contrasts sharply with the shrill and emotional outbursts so common in our "progressive" post-modern age. His work is a welcome and worthy successor to that of his proclaimed predecessor, C.S. Lewis.

I was a little disappointed in this book, probably because I have listened to a lot of Tim Keller's messages and I guess I was hoping for new ideas in this book. I didn't find many points that I hadn't already heard him speak about but that doesn't mean his points aren't intelligent and helpful because they are. I was hoping to give this book to some friends, but after reading it, I think it's too intellectual for them to want to read it. It's a well written, clear, helpful book . . .expectations are a bummer.

In the shrewd analysis of Timothy Keller (no relation to Helen), "The Reason for God" comes down to this: "If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all he said. If he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said?" (p. 202). And that is so true!

Jesus of Nazareth DID rise from the dead, so everyone can just forget about Plan B. And yet, Jesus has sometimes been criticised for not sticking it out in the tomb as long as he promised before making his escape--which is one of those things that Keller's book frankly forces us to accept. Jesus said he would stay dead for three days and three nights (e.g., Matthew 12:38-40). He was taken down from the cross at sunset on Friday. By midnight, his body was wrapped in a winding sheet and stored in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb, with an exit scheduled for Monday evening. And less than thirty hours later, VAVOOM, he's gone! Then came that first predawn visit from his mother and Mary Magdalene, and the rest is history.

I may not be Jesus' biggest fan, but I say let the critics hang. Let them - not for 72 hours but for two MINUTES - nose the inside of a stifling, damp, cobwebby, maggot-infested stone tomb. Better yet, let them sleep in one. And then let them wake up dead on a stone slab, in the middle of the night, like Boris Karloff, in a crypt that is sealed up so tight you can't breathe, and it's so pitch-dark in there that you cannot even see the glow from your own halo.

Truly, it was no picnic for Jesus, not even after they took him down and put him away for the weekend. ESPECIALLY then. You may call it "Holy Week." That's not what Jesus called it. I'll tell you what Jesus called it. Jesus called it "Maundy Thursday," "Bad Friday," "Easter Sunday," and GETMEOUTAHERE Saturday.

Timothy Keller doesn't call the Lord's early-bird Resurrection a "mistake." He calls it improvisational quick-thinking, and I totally agree with him. I don't care if your name is David Blaine, if you were trapped inside that tomb, you would not have stayed one minute longer than Jesus did. For a moment, just imagine yourself inside that dark stone crypt with the risen Lord: here lies the body, just starting to stir. There's you, a devout, born-again Christian--even so, I still would not be too surprised if you pounded lumps on him to be the first one out. And if you should ever happen to be trapped inside a small stuffy elevator with a stabbed-dead body during a power-outage, you will know exactly what I'm talking about.

After just thirty hours, Jesus' injuries had not yet had time to heal - but that, actually, turned out to be a big plus. It was the sight of those wounds that totally convinced grumpy Thomas, for example, that Jesus' literal physical body had literally passed through the stone wall of the tomb without exiting by the door. Later, when he showed himself to doubting Thomas, Jesus said, "Go ahead! Reach hither your finger, and touch my hands." So Thomas did that.

Then Jesus hoisted his robe. "Now reach hither your hand," he said, "and thrust your fingers into the spear-hole in my side, and be not faithless, but believe!" (John 20:27).

Now when Jesus lifted his robe to display a deep wound in his side where no wound should be, from the spear of Felix Fabius, several of the Eleven were totally embarrassed, not unlike the Washington press corps when President Lyndon Johnson hoisted his shirt to display the scar from his recent and successful cholecystectomy.

But it was exactly the right thing for Jesus to have done at that particular moment. Jesus did not borrow his "Check it out!" stratagem from President Johnson; he borrowed it from his mother, who had told him the story of her own similar "challenge of faith" to skeptical Salome, at the Virgin birth, as recorded also in the Gospel of James.

The device worked perfectly to restore the faith of grumpy Thomas, who jerked his hands behind his back and said, "My Lord!" and "My God!" (John 20:28). Thomas was aghast - for he knew Salome personally, and she had told him her own version of the same frightening story from thirty years ago.

No WAY was Thomas going to poke his fingers in there.

Jesus said, "Thomas, because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and believed, anyway" (John 20:29).

And that saying cut Thomas's heart to the quick: for even though he went on to write a much-beloved holy scripture (the Gospel of Thomas, which helped Saint Paul and the Church patriarchs to establish Christ's position on "the problem with Jews"), poor grumpy Thomas never did feel as lucky or well-blessed as these people who can believe whatever the Bible says, without seeing any evidence that it might actually be true.

- L.

Timothy Keller has given a clear and simple discussion of the reason for God's releveance and exitence in contemporary society. As a New York pastor for the last decades, he writes with authority and compassion. I recommend this book to anyone seeking a guide to truth.

I have read this book at least three times since I purchased it. I think it is great--obviously. After reading it, I then purchased another copy for my son-in-law for an anniversary gift.

This is a very well written book. I was very impressed by how fair-minded and non-polemical Mr. Keller was while treating subjects of peoples' beliefs or non-beliefs. He takes both today's Christians and Atheists to task while making a strong case for the traditional beliefs of orthodox Christianity. Excellent book, I really enjoyed it!

This book is for skeptics, those who have been damaged by the church, doubters and seekers. It is not a plea to your emotions or a detailed Bible study... it is a quick read which covers deep questions using logic, reason and common sense. Pastor Keller does not ask you to put your brain on hold while he discusses topics like "are science and religion compatible". Instead, he encourages you to think and come to your own understanding of God. He does not avoid challenges - there are quotes from renown atheist Richard Dawkins - and in plain, easy to understand language provides clear, concise evidence for God.

As a pastor of a huge multicultural church in Manhattan, Keller also incorporates questions from many angles - cultural as well as religious. Ultimately, he brings the discussion back to the "spiritual", which to my mind reads "Where do you stand with the Eternal Creator right now?" and "If you died and had to face Him, how would you respond if He asked you why you should be allowed into His sinless, perfect heaven.

A really good read, not recommended for people who are looking for a sugar-coated God and Bible marinated in excuses and diversions.

Whether you are seeking out answers about God or a believer looking to have ready answers for why you believe, this book is a great resource. It answers arguments philsophically and gives solid arguments for God and Jesus. It poses questions for modern skeptics and defends Christian belief in this age. I believe it is a great book for our current time.

I struggled with Keller's writing from the very beginning of the book. I found his arguments superficial and lazy; he did a disservice to the subject matter. The reader is much better served reading N.T. Wright or C.S. Lewis, or the litany of responsible, thoughtful scholars out there.

Tim Keller is in touch with the questions that people these days are asking about Christianity's relevance. He is intelligent and thorough, but sensitive, humble and humorous. I highly recommend this book to anyone with questions about Christianity.

Go to the nearest Barnes and Noble and take a stroll through the section of Bestsellers. You might be surprised to see so many books that are hostile towards Christianity (or theism in general). Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great (among others) are flying off the shelves, telling readers that "religion poisons everything."

Thankfully, today you might find Timothy Keller's new book on the shelf as well: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

Keller pastors Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, one of the strongest church-planting congregations in the United States. The subtleness of Keller's preaching style translates well into book form. The Reason for God exudes warmth in its simple and understated style, a manner of writing that stands in stark contrast to the exaggerated antics of Keller's atheistic foes.

The Reason for God is divided into two halves. In the first part (provocatively titled "The Leap of Doubt"), Keller takes six common objections to Christianity and unmasks the hidden assumptions behind each. For example, in the chapter on religious exclusivity, Keller takes the criticism that "there can't be just one true religion" and shows how the hidden assumption behind this criticism is actually exclusive and arrogant. Keller charts a similar path with other common objections (the problem of evil, the injustice of the church, the compatibility of religion and science, hell, etc.).

In the second half of the book ("The Reasons for Faith"), Keller makes his case for Christianity. He explains with how we can know God, he defines sin, and he lays out the differences he sees between "religion" and "the gospel." Particularly helpful are his chapters on the cross and resurrection. The result is a terrific case for the importance of faith in our world today.

The Reason for God is bound to upset many people. The radical atheists will most likely respond with harsh invectives towards Keller and his reasoning. Some Christians will shudder at the ecumenical "mere Christianity" that Keller advocates in the book. Others will not appreciate the way he wears his Protestantism on his sleeve, especially in the chapter on the cross.

In making his case for Christianity, Keller walks a fine line between avoiding denominationalism altogether and promoting his own denominational distinctives. Personally, I think he avoids both extremes quite well. In the final chapter, Keller encourages people to join the church (which he compares to the ocean - enormous and diverse). Some may quibble with the fact that Keller does not make the case for conservative Protestantism, but perhaps Keller's Reformed theology is coming through here, as he trusts in the sovereignty of a God who will lead his people to right belief and practice.

I look forward to using The Reason for God as a reference in my conversations with skeptics, in my teaching a class of 20-somethings, and in my own personal struggles with faith and doubt. The Reason for God will most likely be judged a "classic," a book that resembles Mere Christianity and other apologetic works that have impacted the Christian church. Pick up this book and read it. Better yet, buy several copies and start giving them away. You won't be disappointed.

I never expect this book can convince a skepic. I doubt whether there exists one which appeals only to rationality, reason or logic can. As someone who earns his living through high probability trading, I deem the substance of this book extremely likely, if not absolute. Although I am only 80% satisfied with those answers (mostly semantics) to the seven questions in Part 1, I love reading Part 2 more coz the author had been relieved to write freely (and brilliantly) on sin, love, evolution theory, Jekyll and Hyde, the Trinity etc. A great spiritual read as outstanding as Yancey's What's so amazing about grace? and Cymbala's Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire. Highly recommended!

p.s. Below please find some of my favorite passages for your reference.

We cannot consider a group exclusive simply because it has standards for its members. Is there then no way to judge whether a community is open and caring rather than narrow and oppressive? Yes, there is....Which community has beliefs that lead its members to treat persons in other communities with love and respect - to serve them and meet their needs? pg 40
One of the principles of love - is that you have to lose independence to attain greater intimacy. If you want the freedoms of love - the fulfilment, security, sense of worth that it brings - you must limit your freedom in many ways.....Freedom, then, is not the absence of limitations and constraints but it is finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us. pg 48/9
The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. pg 54
I found no other religious text outside of the Bible that said God created the world out of love and delight. pg 82
All sins are attempted to fill voids. Because we cannot stand the God-shaped hole inside of us, we try stuffing in full of all sorts of things, but only God may fill it. - Simone Weil pg 160
The fact that Jesus had to die for me humbled me out of my pride. That fact that Jesus was glad to die for me assured me out of my fear. pg 200

Timothy Keller's book is an inspiring, spiritual, intellectual "journey" for those whose lives seem empty and shallow; and, for those whose current ways of living seem meaningless and unsatisfying. This book offers us all so much more.....a way to make the most of our human potential. Rev. Keller is an engaging writer. I recommend this book to everyone.

Timothy Keller has written a good book, designed to appeal to both skeptics and believers. The first section of the book deals with doubts about Christianity that many believers have, as well as the most common objections to Christianity that skeptics have. The second portion of the book deals primarily with reasons for having (and keeping) faith.

Keller makes an interesting point in his introduction: "A faith without doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it." I believe that an unexamined faith is not worth believing in. I was raised in a Christian household, and even if I didn't know the answer to a particular question right then, I always knew that eventually (through study and research) I'd find the answer. Keller encourages Christians to examine their beliefs and ask themselves not only what they believe but why they believe it.

This book is unique in the sense that it doesn't encourage argument with non-believers but instead, understanding. Keller points out, very elegantly, that we need to know what we believe and understand the doubts about what we believe whether they're ours or someone elses.

I recently bought this book from amazon and participated in a book study with a few fellow believers. We just finished and I can honestly say that i loved this book. The symbolism used is very effective and helpful!!! I love this book and if you dont own it we need to change that!!!!
:D Trevor

I've been reading this book for the past few months, and I have to save it is the best book on Christianity I've read this year. It is easy to follow, and Tim Keller raises many good points in it. I highly recommend it to both Christians and non-Christians alike.

This book is a must read for anyone who has ever struggled with their Christian faith or for those who want to know why they should believe in God. It is insightful and one of the most readable apologetics books on Christianity. I especially recommend this book for those who have accepted the usual secular arguments against belief in God.

My reasons for leaving Christianity are exactly the same as Tim Keller's reasons for why you should join it: There is no one overwhelming argument which can't be denied; instead there are a lot of smaller reasons which, when taken together, provide an inductive force so compelling I couldn't resist it. Also, like Keller, I like this story better.

Ironically, Keller's book was fairly instrumental in my deconversion. As I've said other places, it was a long and gradual process which finally led me away from the faith. But the last lifeline I had was Tim Keller's recent book, The Reason for God. I know and respect his work in many other places and was hoping that this book would provide me with the rationale I needed to counter credible unChristian arguments and sustain my Christian belief. The opposite happened.

Keller takes up a two-part strategy: First, he demonstrates how the objections to Christianity, or "defeater beliefs," assume the same form which they intend to criticize. Second, the constructive portion of his argument can probably be accurately caricaturized(1) as: "Christianity is a really nice story, so you should accept it."

In the first half of the book, the "defeater beliefs" section, Keller astutely lays out the overall problem: there is no objective place from which to judge various worldviews. Kudos to Keller on this because many people never get this, especially many Christians! Unfortunately, the book is all down hill from here. Keller tries to illustrate the issue with his elephant analogy. A summary: Imagine several blind people touching a creature which they don't know is an elephant. One says, "It's long and flexible like a snake," feeling the trunk. Another says, "No it's thick and round like a tree trunk," feeling its leg. Another touches the side and says, "No it's large and flat." Then Keller says:

In the same way, it is argued, the religions of the world each have a grasp on part of the truth about spiritual reality, but none can see the whole elephant or claim to have a comprehensive vision of the truth.

This illustration backfires on its users. The story is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How could you know that each blind man only sees part of the elephant unless you claim to be able to see the whole elephant? ... How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?

As someone who was wrestling with this very question, I was thrilled when it looked like Keller would say something profound about it. Excitement turned sour when instead of the profound and rational thinking I've come to expect from Keller (and I have read/listened to his work many other places with the highest praise), I was given a very flimsy straw man and logic-less pebbles hurled in its general direction.

My immediate response to this particular analogy was first that it is probably a good analogy, and the many different religions do "feel" different parts of a single great reality. But to answer the last question in this quote above: We would know by listening to each other charitably, thinking clearly, and not by a theological imperialism that claims the perspective of omniscient narrator simply because we already proved no one can hold that position (sic).

The rest of Keller's first section on "doubting your doubts," is filled with more of the same: straw man arguments weakly attacked. No person who actually holds the various positions Keller represents would agree with his caricatures--evidenced by each of the non-Christians and even my Keller-loving Pastor friend who made up our book discussion group. By the end of the first half, our group continued reading out of astounded disbelief at what could possibly be in the second half that would redeem the first.

The second half of Keller's book is nice. He starts with a smart approach which finally recalls his admission in the Introduction that no one stands in an objective position to evaluate other worldviews. So he suggests that instead of looking for airtight arguments, we look at the gestalt of small indicators like: The origin of the Big Bang, cosmological constants allowing for life, the regularity of nature, beauty, and "the clue-killer [that] is really a clue." This is not meant to be a long book review, so I must deprive you of specifics, but as Keller went through his clues for God, each of them struck me as either having a simpler explanation short of God, or even as full support against his Christian suggestion.

To close, Keller morphs the last six chapters away from almost any rational argument at all. Instead, he describes features of Christianity that are nice and appealing, expecting to make the sale on ideal virtues. Isn't it nice that Christianity gives you paradise after you die? Isn't it nice that Christianity give you a justification for morality? Isn't it nice that God did such a dramatic thing as sending his son to "write himself into the story?" If you're ready to convert, see the epilogue.

So Keller's project is actually three-part: 1.) give reasons to doubt objections to Christianity, 2.) Present Christianity as something that "would be nice if it were true," then 3.) Invite the reader to believe it.

My response to Keller's book went like this: 1.) every single objection you raised has far deeper merit than you even begin to acknowledge, 2.) There are parts of Christianity which are great and really "would be nice if it were true," but "want makes not." 3.) I already want to believe Christianity is true, but it's the real arguments which your straw men caricaturize that have twisted my arm away from belief.

After reading Keller's book, I'm left at the last conclusion that Christianity is a nice story--and even my favorite religion--but it's a long way from being true. But his book is very convincing: It has convinced many Christians that they should be Christians; and it has convinced many non-Christians that they should be non-Christians. But it has also convinced at least one Christian that he should be a non-Christian.

(1) I use this word "caricaturize" several times despite my spell-check trying to make it "characterize," because I mean it as: "a good natured exaggeration of the most significant features: to make a caricature."

Keller's work is first rate. I found myself diving deeply into this work and enjoying every aspect of it. It is true that many of his arguments are not new, rather they are just wrapped in a more modern or should I say post-modern packaging.

I believe the beauty of the book is that he doesn't seek to prove God is there. Rather he presents the case that the notion that God isn't there requires a suspension of observations and known conditions of our society and world. Ultimately, he works to create doubt in the belief that God is not real.

It is without a doubt that Keller works from a christocentric view and that is evident throughout his work.

Reading this book was actually a huge factor in my becoming a Christian. Although Anthony Flew is not a Christian the fact that someone as educated and also whose aetheim was so publically intertwined with his professional life was able to admit to the existence to a higher being made me reconsider my aethiestic paradigm that I had held so firmly to. That said this book is boring, it reads like a disertation but I am sure glad I read it because it changed my life!

Along with Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis this should be required reading for all Christians of any denomination. Fills you with ammo to defend what you KNOW is true when debating with skeptics and affirms your faith. Excellent!

Timothy Keller's THE REASON FOR GOD: BELIEF IN AN AGE OF SKEPTICISM offers questions and doubts for believers and comes from the pastor of a Presbyterian Church in New York City. His list of the most frequent doubts skeptics bring to his church - and his answers - results in an inspirational presentation written with atheists, agnostics and skeptics in mind. Religious collections as well as general-interest lending libraries will find it thought-provoking.

I don't believe we can reason our way to God but Keller's outstanding book may well shake the confidence of those who believe reason leads away from God. He gives concise rebuttals to many questions expressed by young people seeking spiritual answers in an Age of Doubt. I have shared it with those closest to me who share these struggles. It is a powerful tool for anyone sincerely pursuing ultimate truth.

I don't believe we can reason our way to God but Keller's outstanding book may well shake the confidence of those who believe reason leads away from God. He gives concise rebuttals to many questions expressed by young people seeking spiritual answers in an Age of Doubt. I have shared it with those closest to me who share these struggles. It is a powerful tool for anyone sincerely pursuing ultimate truth.

I tend to not like most Christian books mostly because most of what is written assumes that the reader believes the Bible to be absolute truth. This books addresses the more modern questions that people who are skeptical have about Christianity and belief in God in general. The responses to the questions were very clear and usually worked down to the real issues that one can make a personal decision about. This book is definitely worth reading and it may end up being a good tool to help examine your own beliefs regardless of what they may be.

After reading this wonderful, intelligent book, I plan to buy more and give as gifts for Christmas. No matter what you believe, you will find Tim Keller compelling and thought provoking.

Should be required reading for anyone who is a Christian, calls himself a Christian, has ever thought about being a Christian, has ever met a Christian, doesn't know what a Christian is (or even if you think you do!), or is absolutely certain that Christians have it "all wrong".
If you're a thinking person, it's for YOU!

As an atheist, I looked forward to reading this book to find what an intellectual and sophisticated believer would say to a skeptic. Keller leads with a convincing presentation of both skeptical and dogmatic viewpoints, and leads the reader to believe that he will "explode" the case for atheism and otherwise answer skepticism with convincing and highly reasoned arguments. However, for all his good writing and insistent good will, the intellectual tenor of this book is as hackneyed as they come- as classic an apologia as one might want to find from the last decade or the last century. His coups de grace generally invoke C. S. Lewis, whose chestnuts of apology hardly break new intellectual ground.

On the problem of evil, he concludes: "Just because you can't see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn't mean that can't be one." This is of course the old panglossian argument that all is for the good, at least by the mysterious ways of god. The problem is that scripture and religious believers have very definite ideas about what is just and unjust, to the point of a license to kill (the just war, not to mention the inquisition). So this cognitive humility foisted on the skeptic suddenly evaporates when the issue is, say, abortion, or the divinity of Jesus. The fact is that humans have an inborn and cultivated sense of morals, which is what they use to assess whether a religion is beneficial, not the other way around. Indeed, Keller then turns around to give secular reasons (the liberation of women) why Christianity was at its origin was more moral than its surrounding community. It is our subjective and evolving moral sense that is the criterion, not words on a page, let alone words from the bronze age.

On the problem of multiple religions, Keller presents an equally deficient and hackneyed solution. Quoting Alvin Plantinga in answer to the proposition that a Christian would in all probability be Muslim if raised in a Muslim society, he notes: "... If the pluralist had been born in Morocco he probably wouldn't be a pluralist. Does it follow that ... his pluralist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process?". The problem with this formulation is that it ignores the reasoning at issue. The "leap of faith" that is required to take on religious belief is notoriously non-intellectual (as Keller admits in his introduction as being the "second barrier" to his personal faith, which was overcome with a personal experience of god's presence). This leap is socially conditioned, as is the expression of religious emotions generally. Thus the religious person takes on the religious forms she was born into with few exceptions. On the other hand, the skeptical reasoning process applies equally to all cultural settings, and results in a dismissal of each of the religious forms, resulting in a logically consistent and universal viewpoint rather than a parochially artistic product. There is no harm in valuing the many expressions of religious sentiment that humanity has generated over the millennia, but we should not mistake those expressions for intellect.

Ultimately, you should read this book if you want uplifting stories of how urban, hip (yet gullible) people joined the Redeemer church. But do not read this book if you are looking for deep intellectual discussions of skepticism and why one might honestly reason one's way to Christianity.

This book is very thought provoking and insightful. Tim Keller seems to have a very good ability of addressing some very difficult questions, fairly and humbly. I recommend this book to anyone who is wrestling with some of the big questions in life.

Not a complete explanation of God, of course. But it must be one of the most clear and comprehensive ones. The author relies heavily on the Christian writers C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. But he does not ignore the opposition. Timothy Keller also very clearly explains the reasoning of popular atheist writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchins. Also other religions are not ignored. You can gain a hell of a good religious education from just this one book.

The Bible isn't so warm and cozy as the author would make it out to be -- that's the problem with newage Christianity and this book; all lovey-dovey and no law. Jesus himself said "you cannot follow me unless you know scripture." As the New Testament wasn't created yet -- the Roman Catholics put it together a couple centuries later, then Jesus was referring to the Old Testament with all of its nastiness. In addition, the New Testament has some pretty scary bits in it too.

I think the nastiness has it's purpose. God may not be the pacifist, fellow sufferer that this books imagines. God seems pretty vengeful, jealous, manipulative, sadistic, blood-thirsty and cruel sometimes -- can't deny that part of his nature as it is well documented in both the New and Old Testaments. Nice to imagine a grandfatherly God, but that would be selective reading. It would nice to have it be true though.

Also, the author claims to be following the 'original' intent of Christianity (he calls himself orthodox,) but still retains the Roman Catholic notion of Trinity by misreading 'son of god' to mean that Jesus is literally god in a different form. In the Gospels, the being of Jesus as "son of God", corresponds to the typical Hasid from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by divine intervention performs miracles and exorcisms. The Romans were polytheists who misunderstood this, and managed to retain their polytheism within a paganized Christian faith -- ie. the Trinity, and all the saint worship.

The 'Reason for God' isn't a reason at all. Just the moral insight from an arguably very nice person who mistakenly thinks he is walking in the footsteps of the ancients -- he calls himself 'orthodox'; when he is in fact, very much removed and a 'modern good man' who sees a God that appears to be more a reflection of his own personal modern sensibilities than a reflection of the ancient texts.

Not Christianity in the ancient sense, but a modern polytheism based loosely on the original texts, and contemporary sensibilities.

The Bible isn't so warm and cozy as the author would make it out to be -- that's the problem with newage Christianity and this book; all lovey-dovey and no law. Jesus himself said "you cannot follow me unless you know scripture." As the New Testament wasn't created yet -- the Roman Catholics put it together a couple centuries later, then Jesus was referring to the Old Testament with all of its nastiness. In addition, the New Testament has some pretty scary bits in it too.

I think the nastiness has it's purpose. God may not be the pacifist, fellow sufferer that this books imagines. God seems pretty vengeful, jealous, sadistic, blood-thirsty and cruel sometimes -- can't deny that part of his nature as it is well documented in both the New and Old Testaments. Nice to imagine a grandfatherly God, but that would be selective reading. It would nice to have it be true though.

Also, the author claims to be following the 'original' intent of Christianity (he calls himself orthodox,) but still retains the Roman Catholic notion of Trinity by misreading 'son of god' to mean that Jesus is literally god in a different form. In the Gospels, the being of Jesus as "son of God", corresponds to the typical Hasid from Galilee, a "pious" holy man that by divine intervention performs miracles and exorcisms. The Romans were polytheists who misunderstood this, and managed to retain their polytheism within a paganized Christian faith -- ie. the Trinity, and all the saint worship.

The 'Reason for God' isn't a reason at all. Just the moral insight from an arguably very nice person who mistakenly thinks he is walking in the footsteps of the ancients -- he calls himself 'orthodox'; when he is in fact, very much removed and a 'modern good man' who sees a God that appears to be more a reflection of his own personal modern sensibilities than a reflection of the ancient texts.

Not Christianity in the ancient sense, but a modern polytheism based loosely on the original texts, and contemporary sensibilities.

One of the 'reasons' for god involves equating scientific belief as a 'faith' and comparing it to 'faith' in God. In other words, science has it's 'faith' and religious people have their 'faith,' so we're pretty much equal -- ie. relativism. Not very convincing or original.

A good read if you're on the edge, and need that final push to become an athiest.

The author feels that he has a better understanding of Christianity than the ancient Christian churches. Very NEWAGE hippy rubbish.

What sets this book apart from other Christian apologetic books is its tone and the manner in which it presents the material. It's clear that pastor Keller put in a lot of thought in 1) the orderly way the content is presented within each chapter, 2) the tone with which he conveys the ideas, and 3) understanding the vantage points and experiences that nonbelievers and even some believers are coming from.

For the first point, the chapter on evil exemplifies Keller at his best. There are some logical arguments that he uses to address the issue of how a good God could allow evil and suffering in the world. He doesn't leave you hanging or browbeaten by the sheer weight of the logical force of the arguments. He ends the chapter by talking about the suffering of God. For a nonbeliever and for the believer, the last thing anyone wants to hear, when one goes through personal trial, are the logical holes behind the assertion of a good God allowing evil. When one suffers, words of logic does nothing to make sense of the situation. If anything, it's the silence of compassion that is best displayed by a powerful God, who suffers along with the rest of humanity and who is, thus, able to identify with the pain and despair. Why does evil happen? It's hard to come up with logic to explain children dying in senseless tragedies like the Sichuan earthquake or Myanmar floods but one thing that's for certain, Keller points out, is that God is not oblivious nor untouched by the pain and sufferings of the world. This is how he ends that chapter and in all of my readings of apologetic books, Keller did the best job in ending a chapter on the problem of evil by talking about the Christian God who suffers along with the rest of humanity.

For the second point, you really have to hear him in person. I got a chance to hear him at Stanfurd and Cal Berkeley. It feels nothing like an academic lecture but rather his gentle tone and warm exuberance makes you feel like your grandfather just pulled you aside to give you one of those talks on life and you are all ears. I think that tone is aptly conveyed throughout the book and makes it for pleasurable reading.

For the third point, he's had many experiences counseling and fielding questions regarding God, Bible, Christianity, etc. from people from all walks of life. Because of this, this really allows him to understand where people are coming from with their questions. Reading through the book, you get the sense that the basis of many people's questions/doubts/objections to Christianity isn't really so much logical as it is personal.

This is a great book. Ignore those reviews that say that this is too light and shallow. The believers who say such things have really missed the point of evangelism, which is relational in nature and not about winning a debate through the use of sheer force of logic. God did not win our hearts over by cornering us with logic but by dying for us. I think that's the difference with Christianity and the other religions. The gods of other religions respond to humanity's rebellion by saying, "You must die for your sins." The Christian God, on the other hand, in response to humanity's rebellion says, "I must die for your sins." This is what sets apart the Christian God from others.

Aside from that, the reason why I gave it 4 stars is because the chapter on science was weak. Other than that, this book is destined to be a classic. Enjoy!!!

This book is well written, clear and concise. It's well worth reading for both christians and skeptics. Some theology books can be hard reading, but Keller keeps it interesting throughout the entire book.

An excellent book that makes the convincing case that everyone has a view about spiritual reality, whether they deny the supernatural or not. Keller points out that even those with the most "skeptical" of views place their trust in unprovable assumptions about the world; "strong rationality" is impossible. Therefore everyone needs to think carefully about their worldview, holding to beliefs only with the strength the evidence permits. Keller's main point is to clear away brush that may have hindered your journey, and encourage you to seriously consider whether Jesus really rose from the dead and all that entails.

Keller deals with several objections to Christianity in a compassionate, but no-nonsense, manner. He takes some common views to their absurd, and self-annihilating, ends, and shows other criticisms to be ethnocentric, essentially imposing a Western, Enlightenment, individualistic, democratic, privatized view of religion (held by a minority on the planet) onto spiritual matters.

Some notable aspects of this book I haven't seen in others, or at least not tied together as they are here:

* the distinction between slavery in the ancient Roman world and more recent (and heinous) New World slavery

* an excellent discussion of how a good God could allow pain and suffering and the Christian resources to deal with suffering

* careful articulation of the lack of any objective moral grounding for human rights on the secular view

* a insightful discussion of "sin" as not merely wrongdoing, but the making of good things (e.g., children, career, social justice) into ultimate things

* a comparison of "religion" and the "gospel " (salvation through moral effort versus salvation through grace)

* a clear discussion of the resurrection and the history of the early church which basically leaves Jesus' actual bodily resurrection as the account which best explains the evidence

* a concise and accessible description of the Christian view of the complete restoration of humanity and the entire universe, as opposed to the uninspiring caricatures of heaven sometimes found in the popular mind (think clouds and harps)

All in all, a persuasive and insightful discussion that will enrich both the skeptic and believer. I would recommend this to anyone with ANY interest in spiritual matters. Keller's book may be the best work of apologetics for this generation of Westerners.

p.s.: You can listen to and watch free lectures by Keller on his book by visiting the Veritas Forum website www.veritas.org The man seems even more humble, compassionate, and even humorous in person.

This is an excellent book. While the majority of the material is the "standard apologetic material," all of it is packaged in a very helpful and accessible way for young Post-moderns. Several of the "old ideas" are even given a new, fresh twist by Dr. Tim. No ivory tower here: obviously the work is the result of interaction with real people with real questions.

This book is definitely worth the price; definitely worth the read. Do Christians just take it all on blind faith? You won't be able dismiss Belief that simply after reading this book!

This is an excellent book. While the majority of the material is the "standard apologetic material," all of it is packaged in a very helpful and accessible way for young Post-moderns. Several of the "old ideas" are even given a new, fresh twist by Dr. Tim. No ivory tower here: obviously the work is the result of interaction with real people with real questions.

This book is definitely worth the price; definitely worth the read. Do Christians just take it all on blind faith? You won't be able dismiss Belief that simply after reading this book!

I'm a recovered alcoholic active in A.A. and devoted to researching and reporting A.A.'s Biblical roots and early successes.Making Known the Biblical History and Roots of Alcoholics Anonymous: A Sixteen-Year Research, Writing, Publishing, and Fact Dissemination Project, Third Edition. The road block to believing in present-day A.A. is "thinking." Many newcomers are told to just drink, not think, and go to meetings. That said, they become suckers for the commonplace nonsense that "your" higher power can be a light bulb, a radiator, the group, Gertrude, Something, or a tree.God and Alcoholism: Our Growing Opportunity in the 21st Century, and The Good Book and the Big Book: A.A.'s Roots in the Bible (Bridge Builders Edition). Contrast with such talk the emphatic statement of A.A. cofounder Dr. Bob on page 181 of the Big Book that he feels sorry for the atheist, agnostic, skeptic, and critic who doubts the program. He concludes, "Your Heavenly Father will never let you down!"Dr. Bob of Alcoholics Anonymous: His Excellent Training in the Good Book As a Youngster in Vermont. Despite A.A.'s early Christian Fellowship, history of religious connections, and pioneer reliance on God and the Bible, the trend goes the way of idols.Real Twelve Step Fellowship History. My thinking is that Psalm 115 provides an adequate answer. But AAs are often told not to read the Bible. Hence, however meritorious this author's presentation may be, it stimulates thought. And stimulated thought will not, I believe, opt for prayer to a chair for recovery.

The Reason for God has two purposes in mind. First, it seeks to provide answers to some of the most common arguments against Christianity. Second, it seeks to positively present the argument that Christianity makes sense. Both purposes are achieved admirably; the pastoral tone and absence of specialized jargon make for plain talk and clear illustrations. The message of the book, which is not particular to any denomination, comes out loud and clear: Jesus died and rose again, and this means something radical for how we live our lives and the meaning behind them. You won't find fresh perspectives--the theology is orthodox in that sense, but there is plenty to stimulate an inquisitive mind. As an example of this, consider this excerpt from the book. "It is not the strength of your faith but the object of your faith that actually saves you. Strong faith in a weak branch is fatally inferior to weak faith in a strong branch." I recommend this to anyone, but especially to those who are seeking or still are young in the Faith.

Nice to see a little optimism and common sense mixed in with all the fire and brimstone. The arguments are there for all to read if given half a chance.

While I have some problems with the presentation of the book (I say the author doesn't rely on himself as much as he should and when he is in doubt quotes C.S Lewis) his main point is a good one.

Simply put if Christianity is going to survive in this age of secularism the church has got to stop saying "we are the light of the world" and start acting like it.

Keller's book gives a fresh and extremely coherent apologetic for the issues which believers and skeptics both question. The last chapter in his book, The God of the Dance, is alone worth the price of the book.

I thought the author used alot of "spin" to make his points. Seemed to think that "correct" social behavior is inherited from God. I kind of wonder what his position would be if religious scripture had a demonic theme. i read a book in college entitled, "The Existence of God", which I thought was more thought provoking. Because this book is more of a modern "spin" on todays issues, makes it worth reading, but don't expect to always nod your head "yes".

I truly enjoyed this book, due to the fact that it invites you to think beyond the easy answers and the author invites conversation about very relevant questions. It doesn't sum up all the world's problems and answer every question about God, religion and Christianity. If we are looking for that in a book then why live life? He offers up suggestions that EVERYONE subscribes to some sort of "belief system," even saying you believe in nothing is a way of belief. As a good book should, it asks you to think, seek out deeper roots to why you believe and what you believe. The questions he discusses are the questions he's been asked a thousand times, and he offers up thoughtful and respectful responses. I do not think this is a book to agree or disagree with, but a book to engage and let roll around in your heart and head. An important book in an age of pluralism that is shredding the depth of community.