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.

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.

Given the title, it is ironic that I was skeptical about this book at first. I had read so many apologetic works making the same recycled arguments with varying degrees of shrillness that I honestly assumed this would be one more well-intentioned by disappointing book by a well-intentioned by substandard thinker. Was I ever wrong. In The Reason for God, Timothy Keller finally provides what I and many others have been looking for in modern apologetics--reasonableness. Not since C.S. Lewis--and I do not make this comparison lightly--has the case for Christianity been made with such coolness and clear-headed logic.

Keller's book is divided into two broad sections. In the first, "The Leap of Doubt," Keller draws on his experience as a Manhattan pastor to present the most common objections or doubts about Christianity expressed by healthily-skeptical modern people. Keller argues for Christianity with great tact--"argue" is entirely too strong a word--showing not just the flaws in the doubt and its atheist or skeptical roots, but how religion, and Christianity specifically, answer those questions and can fill the voids in the doubter's life. Throughout it is clear that Keller respects and understands the doubts people have about the exclusivity of Christianity, or the Church's history of injustices, or the uncomfortable thoughts of Hell and the supernatural.

The second section, "The Reasons for Faith," builds on the first. If in the first half of the book Keller defends Christianity with his quiet and respectful apologia, here he argues for Christianity with just as much respect, and just as much success. Chapters on the "clues" that point to God and His relationship with human beings--especially in regard to the thought, so terrible to people, of sin--are outstanding. Each section and chapter builds on those that come before, making this book difficult to summarize but a joy to read.

If The Reason for God has any one flaw, it is one of scope. Keller opens up so many deep, complex issues that they cannot possibly be covered in-depth in a single book--any one chapter here could easily justify dozens of books. But Keller's goal is to operate like his "clues for God" and point the reader in the right direction rather than lead them by the hand. This was one book that, for me, could have been twice as long.

I came to this book as a skeptical Christian and found myself not only won over by Keller's calm reasoning but encouraged by his work. The section on sin, in which he presents Søren Kierkegaard's definition of the term as a means to understanding how it breaks man's relationship with God, moved me and helped me understand flaws in my own life. One need not be converted by this book to have one's life changed. And as a believer who has often doubted, it was encouraging to know that those doubts are not only reasonable, but answerable.

Highly recommended.

Excellent resource for a civil, informed argument for the God of the Bible and Christian world view.

Given the title, it is ironic that I was skeptical about this book at first. I had read so many apologetic works making the same recycled arguments with varying degrees of shrillness that I honestly assumed this would be one more well-intentioned by disappointing book by a well-intentioned by substandard thinker. Was I ever wrong. In The Reason for God, Timothy Keller finally provides what I and many others have been looking for in modern apologetics--reasonableness. Not since C.S. Lewis--and I do not make this comparison lightly--has the case for Christianity been made with such coolness and clear-headed logic.

Keller's book is divided into two broad sections. In the first, "The Leap of Doubt," Keller draws on his experience as a Manhattan pastor to present the most common objections or doubts about Christianity expressed by healthily-skeptical modern people. Keller argues for Christianity with great tact--"argue" is entirely too strong a word--showing not just the flaws in the doubt and its atheist or skeptical roots, but how religion, and Christianity specifically, answer those questions and can fill the voids in the doubter's life. Throughout it is clear that Keller respects and understands the doubts people have about the exclusivity of Christianity, or the Church's history of injustices, or the uncomfortable thoughts of Hell and the supernatural.

The second section, "The Reasons for Faith," builds on the first. If in the first half of the book Keller defends Christianity with his quiet and respectful apologia, here he argues for Christianity with just as much respect, and just as much success. Chapters on the "clues" that point to God and His relationship with human beings--especially in regard to the thought, so terrible to people, of sin--are outstanding. Each section and chapter builds on those that come before, creating by the end of the book a beautifully-constructed work that was just as moving as it was thought-provoking.

I came to this book as a skeptical Christian and found myself not only won over by Keller's calm reasoning but encouraged by his work. The section on sin, in which he presents Søren Kierkegaard's definition of the term as a means to understanding how it breaks man's relationship with God, moved me and helped me understand flaws in my own life. One need not be converted by this book to have one's life changed. And as a believer who has frequently doubted, it was encouraging to know that those doubts are not only reasonable, but answerable.

Highly recommended.

Tim Keller's new book is a thoughtful and kindly answer to that question. It shouldn't be confused with a theological treatise on ¨the varieties of the Christian experience,¨ as a recent reviewer seems to expect. Nor can Keller go into much depth in any of the topics he covers -- which include both leading objections to Christian faith (part I) and his own best reasons for believing (part II). What Keller offers is an intelligent, informed, but also simple and personal (you feel engaged in a conversation here) argument for Christian faith in the context of popular dismissals.

It's hard to avoid comparing the book with C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. (Especially since Keller quotes Lewis so often, to some peoples' ire.) Keller is trying to do what Lewis did for an earlier generation: explain the Christian faith in a genial, informed, non-sectarian mode. As a Presbyterian pastor (of the very denomination Dawkins ignorantly vilifies in The God Delusion, BTW), Keller is more tied to a particular form of Christianity. The previous reviewer to the contrary, I think he does a fairly good job of transcending those limits.

One thing Keller does that Lewis did not do, is quote a lot of research. (Lewis' book was informed by deep scholarship, but the study formed a sort of endoskeleton to his argument, whereas Keller's sources are visible on the outside -- good for further study, if you have questions. I especially recommend Lewis himself, Wright, Plantinga, and Stark, all whom he cites frequently -- and plan to look up some of the other books he mentions myself!)

One reviewer complains that Keller tells skeptics that they ¨must¨ doubt their doubts. But isn't that just asking them to be consistent, and to examine life even more thoroughly?

The complaint that Keller thinks Christianity is ¨exclusively¨ right is not entirely fair. Keller expresses respect for other religions. Having written a couple books on Christianity and other religions myself (the most relevant being Jesus and the Religions of Man), I agree that Keller could have addressed this topic more thoughtfully.

Another reviewer makes an even more fundamental objection to Keller's approach: ¨The very premise of the book is flawed, because reason and faith have nothing to do with each other. Faith . . . is, fundamentally, to believe something to be true without having or needing a verifiable reason.¨

This is entirely mistaken. It's a pity Keller doesn't address this question a bit, because in my experience it's the single most common misconception about the Christian faith. In fact, that has almost NEVER been what Christians have meant by ¨faith.¨ (See the second chapter of my The Truth Behind the New Atheism, ¨Have Christians lost their minds?¨ for an explanation and rebuttal. That might also be a good book for the reviewer who thinks Keller fails to respond to the allegedly ¨scrupulous¨ arguments of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris well.)

Some critics also seem disappointed that Keller offers ¨clues¨ to God, rather than ¨proof¨ of some sort. But as Pascal said, God gives enough light for those willing to believe, leaving some obscurity for those of ¨contrary disposition.¨ Keller is I think being realistic; between certainty of a positivist kind, and ¨blind faith,¨ there is a vast middle ground of contested facts on which the light of reason and evidence can shine and help us find our way.

On July 7th, 2008, 56 five-star reviews of Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism could be read at amazon.com. Almost all of these reviews had been written by Christians who had agreed with most of what Keller, pastor of New York City's Redeemer Presbyterian Church, had written. Despite its aim, Keller's book (like many apologetic works before it) seems more likely to reinforce what some Christians already believe than to convert true skeptics to Christianity. Moreover, if the experience of this reviewer is at all indicative, then many Christian readers who occupy a theological house other than that of conservative evangelicalism will be dissatisfied with Keller's work for a number of reasons.

These reasons begin with the book's title, whose promise goes unfulfilled. The book's first part does not give reasons for God at all (much less "The Reason"); instead, it gives defenses of garden-variety evangelicalism in the form of responses to assertions and questions that Keller has commonly heard during his time as a pastor. Reasons for God and defenses of Christianity are not the same thing. The book's second part begins with a chapter titled, "The Clues of God"--which is as close as Keller comes to giving reasons for God.

Keller begins his book with a diagnosis: "There is a gulf today between what is popularly known as liberalism and conservatism. Each side demands that you not only disagree with but disdain the other as (at best) crazy or (at worst) evil." He then suggests a third way--namely, that both skeptics (liberals?) and believers (conservatives?) reconsider doubt. "Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts," he writes. Skeptics "must doubt [their] doubts." While Keller seems to be seeking moderation (he hopes for "civility in a pluralistic society," for example), it is doubtful that many true skeptics will take kindly to him telling them what they "must" do three times in four paragraphs. More disappointing, though, is the fact that--after inviting his readers to doubt--Keller expresses few if any doubts of his own about any traditional doctrines (not even about hell).

Certainly, he does not doubt that Christianity is exclusively "right." In his first chapter, Keller observes: "It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right. We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways." Keller does not seek to deny Christianity's exclusivity; rather, he points out the inconsistency--even hypocrisy--of persons who complain about this exclusivity. While this critique is fair, Keller confuses the act of making a claim (which is exclusive) and the content of a claim (which may be more or less exclusive or inclusive).

More importantly, the problem of exclusivity--which Keller concedes often leads to violence--remains (though now it belongs to everyone). Keller's solution? The "exclusive belief system" of Christianity, which promotes peacemaking because it has at its "very heart...a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness." In this section, Keller boldly lifts up the example of the early church--a church that took the teaching and example of Jesus so seriously that it practiced non-violence even in the face of persecution. Unfortunately, Keller continues: "[W]ho can deny that the force of Christians' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?"

About which Christians does Keller write? Is a view of Jesus as peacemaker a "fundamental" conviction of most Christians today? It is held by Anabaptists, and by some Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants. Is it held by many conservative evangelicals? Has recent history not shown that many of these Christians are at least as likely to bless their nation's war-making?

These questions point to another reason for dissatisfaction with Keller's book--his tendency to write as if there is only one understanding of the Christian faith (a notable exception to this tendency is found in the book's "Intermission"). For example, Keller asserts, "In the Christian understanding, Jesus does not tell us how to live so we can merit salvation." Though an Anabaptist might write something similar, he would almost certainly stress that Jesus nonetheless does teach us how to live. This emphasis is not offered by Keller. Keller's theological house has not stressed the importance of discipleship as much as Anabaptists have.

Keller's tendency to overlook the fact that pluralism is not only in the world but also in the church surfaces again in the next chapter (whose focus is on the problem of evil--an issue that begs for more than a chapter treatment). Keller points readers who struggle to reconcile belief in God with the existence of great suffering to the cross. On the cross, explains Keller, God in Christ has shown solidarity with us by suffering with us. This pastoral move is perhaps the best response anyone can give to this perennial question. Still, it is in making this move that Keller again fails to recognize the diversity of Christian thought, writing, "Christian theology has always recognized that Jesus bore, as the substitute in our place, the endless exclusion from God that the human race has merited." Besides its sloppy thinking (the suffering of Jesus on the cross was not "endless"), this claim is arguably untrue, as the substitutionary theory of the atonement was not developed until the end of the eleventh century (by Anselm--see Gustaf Aulen's book, Christus Victor).

One other note: C.S. Lewis makes his first appearance here--the first of many appearances. (It would not be unfair to call Lewis Keller's primary source, as he makes more direct use of this writer's work than he does of Scripture.) Lewis, who was a literature professor, has for decades been the favorite theologian of conservative evangelical Christians. By his heavy reliance on Lewis, Keller serves readers little more than warmed-over evangelicalism. Meanwhile, heavyweight theologians are brought into the conversation only rarely.

On July 7th, 2008, 56 five-star reviews of Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism could be read at amazon.com. Almost all of these reviews had been written by Christians who had agreed with most of what Keller, pastor of New York City's Redeemer Presbyterian Church, had written. Despite its aim, Keller's book (like many apologetic works before it) seems more likely to reinforce what some Christians already believe than to convert true skeptics to Christianity. Moreover, if the experience of this reviewer is at all indicative, then many Christian readers who occupy a theological house other than that of conservative evangelicalism will be dissatisfied with Keller's work for a number of reasons.

These reasons begin with the book's title, whose promise goes unfulfilled. The book's first part does not give reasons for God at all (much less "The Reason"); instead, it gives defenses of garden-variety evangelicalism in the form of responses to assertions and questions that Keller has commonly heard during his time as a pastor. Reasons for God and defenses of Christianity are not the same thing. The book's second part begins with a chapter titled, "The Clues of God"--which is as close as Keller comes to giving reasons for God.

Keller begins his book with a diagnosis: "There is a gulf today between what is popularly known as liberalism and conservatism. Each side demands that you not only disagree with but disdain the other as (at best) crazy or (at worst) evil." He then suggests a third way--namely, that both skeptics (liberals?) and believers (conservatives?) reconsider doubt. "Believers should acknowledge and wrestle with doubts," he writes. Skeptics "must doubt [their] doubts." While Keller seems to be seeking moderation (he hopes for "civility in a pluralistic society," for example), it is doubtful that many true skeptics will take kindly to him telling them what they "must" do three times in four paragraphs. More disappointing, though, is the fact that--after inviting his readers to doubt--Keller expresses few if any doubts of his own about any traditional doctrines (not even about hell).

Certainly, he does not doubt that Christianity is exclusively "right." In his first chapter, Keller observes: "It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right. We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways." Keller does not seek to deny Christianity's exclusivity; rather, he points out the inconsistency--even hypocrisy--of persons who complain about this exclusivity. While this critique is fair, Keller confuses the act of making a claim (which is exclusive) and the content of a claim (which may be more or less exclusive or inclusive).

More importantly, the problem of exclusivity--which Keller concedes often leads to violence--remains (though now it belongs to everyone). Keller's solution? The "exclusive belief system" of Christianity, which promotes peacemaking because it has at its "very heart...a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness." In this section, Keller boldly lifts up the example of the early church--a church that took the teaching and example of Jesus so seriously that it practiced non-violence even in the face of persecution. Unfortunately, Keller continues: "[W]ho can deny that the force of Christians' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?"

About which Christians does Keller write? Is a view of Jesus as peacemaker a "fundamental" conviction of most Christians today? It is held by Anabaptists, and by some Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants. Is it held by many conservative evangelicals? Has recent history not shown that many of these Christians are at least as likely to bless their nation's war-making?

These questions point to another reason for dissatisfaction with Keller's book--his tendency to write as if there is only one understanding of the Christian faith (a notable exception to this tendency is found in the book's "Intermission"). For example, Keller asserts, "In the Christian understanding, Jesus does not tell us how to live so we can merit salvation." Though an Anabaptist might write something similar, he would almost certainly stress that Jesus nonetheless does teach us how to live. This emphasis is not offered by Keller. Keller's theological house has not stressed the importance of discipleship as much as Anabaptists have.

Keller's tendency to overlook the fact that pluralism is not only in the world but also in the church surfaces again in the next chapter (whose focus is on the problem of evil--an issue that begs for more than a chapter treatment). Keller points readers who struggle to reconcile belief in God with the existence of great suffering to the cross. On the cross, explains Keller, God in Christ has shown solidarity with us by suffering with us. This pastoral move is perhaps the best response anyone can give to this perennial question. Still, it is in making this move that Keller again fails to recognize the diversity of Christian thought, writing, "Christian theology has always recognized that Jesus bore, as the substitute in our place, the endless exclusion from God that the human race has merited." Besides its sloppy logic (the suffering of Jesus on the cross was not "endless"), this claim is arguably untrue, as the substitutionary theory of the atonement was developed by Anselm at the end of the eleventh century (see Gustaf Aulen's book, Christus Victor).

One other note: C.S. Lewis makes his first appearance here--the first of many appearances. (It would not be unfair to call Lewis Keller's primary source, as he makes more direct use of this writer's work than he does of Scripture.) Lewis, who was a literature professor, has for decades been the favorite theologian of conservative evangelical Christians. By his heavy reliance on Lewis, Keller serves readers little more than warmed-over evangelicalism. Meanwhile, heavyweight theologians are brought into the conversation only rarely.

I suppose if you already have "The Truth" in your back pocket, it wouldn't hurt to read this book. I have seventeen pages of gripes against this book, but I'll try to keep this short. The very premise of the book is flawed, because reason and faith have nothing to do with each other. Faith - no matter what idiosyncratic ideas we use to define it - is, fundamentally, to believe something to be true without having or needing a verifiable reason. Religious faith is not based simply on whether something has been or can be proven by empirical means; having faith means that proof or the lack thereof has no bearing on the validity of the belief itself. Yes, you can find reason for a belief in a Christian god, but your belief is not contingent on reason, but rather on faith - what is doctrinally considered a higher virtue. Faith trumps all. Reason doesn't support faith any more than wheels make a plane fly(The Wright brothers made bicycles and indeed used wheels to get their planes off the ground, but they didn't make history with landing gear, as that was apparently beside the point). The biggest error Keller makes is assuming that beliefs based on faith are on a level playing field with beliefs based on reason. There is a very important distinction between the two, but Keller glazes over it under the assumption that a majority of his readers won't notice. Unfortunately, it's probably a safe assumption.
Secondly, Keller poses counterarguments against several atheist authors (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris) that are dubious in that, having actually read books by these authors, it leaves me wondering if Keller bothered reading any of their material. He offers simplistic, uninformed rebuttals to the scrupulous arguments posed by these authors, which leads me to think he probably just cherry-picked a few quotes for his own purposes. If you really want to learn something about skepticism and reason, read books by the authors Keller attempts to rebuff; as long as you're willing to read "The Reason for Faith" to satisfy your intellect, why not read something that's actually is intellectually satisfying. If Keller doesn't completely fail at this objective, one can easily see that he's not the best at it, so why waste your time.
It's also a bit annoying how Keller seems to refer to C.S Lewis a little too often, apparently valuing the clever wit of a popular Christian writer over real, substantive arguments. The problem, of course, is not with C.S Lewis, but with Timothy Keller's habit of cherry-picking quotes here and there, turning brilliance into mere novelty.

The Rev. Tim Keller offers up a number of "war horse" arguments for his particular belief system, namely, a fairly standard variety of Christianity, and attempts to deliver them in an apparently even-handed, apparently tolerant fashion. Unfortunately, he seems to be what is known in the 'trade' as a 'True Believer', and so has a hard time actually finding the opposing views to be credible.

His chapters all start off with quotes from persons who he represents as 'skeptics' of one sort or another, none of whom seem to be the 'cream of the crop', as their views often lack much depth, or else are what I would consider narrow quibbles with some particular contention about God and/or Christ and/or Bible stories. It's possible that these are all people who have attended his church, or maybe he has met, personally, in the course of his work as preacher. So, maybe it is less than fair to expect these people to have deep, analytical, robust, and difficult challenges to the tenets of Christianity. Rather, the contrary views expressed seem to be the kind of run-of-the-mill, garden variety doubts that most Christians have probably considered at one time or another, in the course of their church-going lives. You're not going to find the kind of hardened skepticism exemplified by Dawkins or Harris, and hence, you are not going to find adequate refutations of such views, either--if that is what you were hoping for.

I imagine that a lot of Bible-believing Christians will find Keller's arguments to be more arrows in their quivers, when it comes time to assault the non-believers with their prosyletizations. Unfortunately for them, the Atheists they aim for are likely to have already been through similar battles, and will have adequate defensive armor, stout enough to repel such dull, weakly-delivered barbs. It may be that a very few mild agnostics will succumb to such tactics, but I would think that such folk were mostly there, already.

In any event, if you are a mildly logical, thoughtful skeptic, you will find these arguments quite easy to poke all kinds of holes in. On one page alone (p23), I was able to give 4 different analyses, each of which independently constituted a refutation of his claim that "Evil and Suffering isn't Evidence Against God", IMHO. I wrote him a letter to that effect around a week ago, but have yet to hear any counter argument. I presume I am not the sort of skeptic he would have started off a chapter by quoting. (Maybe he is getting a lot of this kind of mail? I hear the book is doing rather well on the sales front. More power to him! I'll assume that, one day, he'll get back to me. "First come, first serve" is fair, I suppose.)

One last observation: Anyone who is interpreting the title in a literal way--that is, looking for an ontological explanation as to why God exists, in the first place (assuming He does exist, which isn't demonstrated in this book)--is just not looking in the right place. Tim Keller simply assumes God does exist, and tries to offer up reasons to believe. So much for truth in packaging!

P.S. Yesterday, his staff people did respond to my criticism, and gave what I must admit were thoughtful and cogent rebuttals... Thoughtful and cogent, but still not totally convincing. However, they were very nice and polite. I appreciate their efforts.

The Rev. Tim Keller offers up a number of "war horse" arguments for his particular belief system, namely, a fairly standard variety of Christianity, and attempts to deliver them in an apparently even-handed, apparently tolerant fashion. Unfortunately, he seems to be what is known in the 'trade' as a 'True Believer', and so has a hard time actually finding the opposing views to be credible.

His chapters all start off with quotes from persons who he represents as 'skeptics' of one sort or another, none of whom seem to be the 'cream of the crop', as their views often lack much depth, or else are what I would consider narrow quibbles with some particular contention about God and/or Christ and/or Bible stories. It's possible that these are all people who have attended his church, or maybe he has met, personally, in the course of his work as preacher. So, maybe it is less than fair to expect these people to have deep, analytical, robust, and difficult challenges to the tenets of Christianity. Rather, the contrary views expressed seem to be the kind of run-of-the-mill, garden variety doubts that most Christians have probably considered at one time or another, in the course of their church-going lives. You're not going to find the kind of hardened skepticism exemplified by Dawkins or Harris, and hence, you are not going to find adequate refutations of such views, either--if that is what you were hoping for.

I imagine that a lot of Bible-believing Christians will find Keller's arguments to be more arrows in their quivers, when it comes time to assault the non-believers with their prosyletizations. Unfortunately for them, the Atheists they aim for are likely to have already been through similar battles, and will have adequate defensive armor, stout enough to repel such dull, weakly-delivered barbs. It may be that a very few mild agnostics will succumb to such tactics, but I would think that such folk were mostly there, already.

In any event, if you are a mildly logical, thoughtful skeptic, you will find these arguments quite easy to poke all kinds of holes in. On one page alone (p23), I was able to give 4 different analyses, each of which independently constituted a refutation of his claim that "Evil and Suffering isn't Evidence Against God", IMHO. I wrote him a letter to that effect around a week ago, but have yet to hear any counter argument. I presume I am not the sort of skeptic he would have started off a chapter by quoting. (Maybe he is getting a lot of this kind of mail? I hear the book is doing rather well on the sales front. More power to him! I'll assume that, one day, he'll get back to me. "First come, first serve" is fair, I suppose.)

One last observation: Anyone who is interpreting the title in a literal way--that is, looking for an ontological explanation as to why God exists, in the first place (assuming He does exist, which isn't demonstrated in this book)--is just not looking in the right place. Tim Keller simply assumes God does exist, and tries to offer up reasons to believe. So much for truth in packaging!

If somebody had to write this book, I'm glad it was Tim Keller. So many evangelicals who tackle this debate do so very condescendingly and without actually answering many of the questions posed by atheists, but rather by throwing out maxims and propositions. Now, I'm not opposed to maxims and propositions, but they have to be given within reason.

I think this book should really serve as a primer for the discussion rather than a closing argument. In just over three hundred pages, Keller is only able to touch the tip of the iceberg concerning each argument both for and against faith in God. I would love to see many others pick up these subjects where Keller left off and continue the conversation.

The best part of the book, in my opinion, was the first half, where Keller tackles various objections to the Christian faith. I have noticed throughout my life that the most volatile and ungracious debaters are often not on the Christian side. While atheists would claim to be more gracious and reasonable, there seems to be a blind arrogance to many atheist arguments. I'm glad Keller addressed that the way that he did. I also personally find it interesting that many atheists go out of their way to disprove something they don't believe in. They spend their time fighting what is, in their mind, nonexistent. I find the fact that so many atheists are haunted by even the notion of God to be fascinating.

All in all, a very good read, but I wouldn't treat it as the final word.

Dr. Keller distills logic, common sense and historical proofs into a book that will be viewed as a masterpiece of early 21st Century writing.

Similar to CS Lewis, he provides clear arguments for both sides and, in keeping with a basic tenet of Christianity, leads the reader to a clear choice--that they either freely accept or reject the scriptures.

If you are an atheist, agnostic, Christian, deist, or practice another religion, it will make you think about the radical claims of Christ. He addresses the difficult "claims" of Christianity" and provides answers to those questions many struggle with. If you dont want to address difficult questions in your life, dont read this book. If you want a challenge, read the book.

Let's consider issues generally not developed by previous reviewers. Also, it's incorrect to fault Keller for providing answers instead of raising more profound questions, as Jesus sometimes did. Note that, when the Pharisees asked Him which of seven successive husbands would be married to the woman after death, Christ didn't ask any deeper question. He plainly told them that they were wrong, and why they were wrong, in their conception of the afterlife. "Ironically, the insistence that doctrines do not matter is really a doctrine itself. It holds a specific view of God, which is touted as superior and more enlightened than the beliefs of most major religions." (p. 8)

A common theme throughout Keller's book is how cultural expectations shape out attitudes. For instance, we find God's unilateral forgiveness attractive and hell offensive. In other cultures, it's the exact opposite. (p. 72) The anti-abolitionists who cited Ephesians 6:5 as justification for 19th-century chattel slavery didn't realize that it was incomparably more severe than the indentured servanthood which Paul had in mind. (pp. 109-111, 266-267) We learn that magic was uncommon in the middle ages; it didn't peak until the 16th-17th centuries--at the same time that modern science got started (p. 70)

The early-church-made-everything-up assertion is contrary to reality. The New Testament mentions unflattering things such as Peter's denials, the disciples' jealousies, etc.--the exact opposite of writings designed to promote and popularize a new religion. (pp. 104-105) Furthermore, we now realize that the ancients were very careful to separate fictional and factual writings (p. 204). Also, Jewish thinking anticipated a final resurrection of many people, not just One (p. 207). 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 was written soon after Christ's Resurrection, and it would've been self-defeating and self-refuting to mention 500 witnesses to the Resurrected Christ if such witnesses didn't exist. (pp. 203-204) Pointedly, "'Jewish revolutionaries whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest themselves, had two options; give up the revolution, or find another leader. Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option. Unless, of course, he was.'" (p. 208) Finally, Gnosticism couldn't possibly be an "alternative Christianity" because the earliest Gnostic gospel wasn't written until at least a century after the four canonical ones. (pp. 102-103)

Keller cites many examples of Christian-led social reform. For instance: "In the late twentieth century the Catholic church in eastern Europe refused to die under Communism. Through `patience, candles, and crosses' it began the chain of events that brought down all those totalitarian regimes. The Polish priest Jerzy Popieluszko...When he was murdered by the secret police, 250,000 people came to his funeral...Many of those who went to his funeral marched past the secret police headquarters with a banner that read `We forgive'. The Christian underpinnings of the resistance movement were unmistakable." (p. 65).

The essence of the Christian faith is: "God did not, then, inflict pain on someone else, but rather on the Cross absorbed the pain, violence, and evil of the world unto Himself." (p. 192)

Some of the unique features of The Reason for God are its readability and tone. It isn't bombastic or overbearing. Keller offers an informed perspective on issues that people inside and outside of the church wrestle with or have trouble understanding. Exploring doubts is a healthy and responsible activity for all of us. Those who want to reexamine what they believe about God and why will find plenty to chew on here. The Reason for God is a winsome defense of classic Christianity.

Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower's Guide for the Journey

I am typically skeptical of Christian books. Although I am a beliver,I usually find them cheesy, overly sentimental, and frequently relying on poor reasoning. This book is an exception to my every expectation. It is intelligently considered, sympathetically worded toward unbelivers, and constructed with impecable reasoning and logic. I highly recommend this book to thinking people everywhere.

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Dr. Tim Keller's work displays a sapient and systematic defense for Christianity. While Keller's approach is that used by old Princeton theologians like Warfield and Hodge in the tradition of Calvinism, Keller more frequently quotes the writings of C. S. Lewis. As a result, this book not only arms the reader faced with challenging questions from unbelievers to defend the faith, but Tim also writes with pastoral concern for God's people. The most comforting section for me is that which deals with "Resurrection and Suffering." In this section Keller states, "The Biblical view of things is resurrection - not a future that is just a consolation for the life we never had but a restoration of the life you always wanted. This means that every horrible thing that ever happened will not only be undone and repaired but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy even greater." This work is a must read for theologians, pastors and lay people to separate truth from error, to understand God's promises and to live in the fullness of God's grace. Thank you Dr. Keller!

Paul A. Tambrino, Ed.D., Ph. D.
Author, "Ask Augustine"

Keller is passionate, but he fails to persuade. The title and chapter outlines led me to believe there was a series of new arguments for a modern, educated audience. What I found was recycled arguments dressed in contemporary clothes, but these older arguments don't seem to be up to the same level of discourse as those who profess a different view - namely the nonexistence of God.

I think Keller is a caring believer, but the "Reasons for God" are muddled.

In summary, there is a fair amount of good material in this book. It is, as many reviewers have said, an expression of "the man". He is accustomed to interacting with skeptics and this book is written from his experience of those interactions. He articulates many correct (i.e. orthodox) ideas, but with surprisingly little Scriptural meat behind it. He uses a lot of reasoning but little grounding of that reason in Scripture (the last chapter is the exception and it has more Scripture references than all the other chapters combined). I am sure he would answer that my critique misses his point; he thinks we should communicate Christian ideas in "contemporary language" since quoting Scripture will simply fly over their heads or be dismissed as begging the question. However, when Paul dialogued with pagans he engaged them on their turf (as does Keller) using Old Testament ideas and language, and some Old Testament quotes. I think Keller goes too far in adopting contemporary language and in so doing fails to communicate biblical truth. I don't expect him to articulate a thorough systematic theology in this book, but where he does touch on doctrine he should state it biblically even if he does not quote the Bible.

This is especially evident in who he quotes. The book is littered with quotes from novels and movies and scientists and little known theologians. The biggest theological names he quotes are CS Lewis and NT Wright (as he explains in his Acknowledgments, Jonathan Edwards was rarely quoted but provides the theological underpinning for the book). Both Lewis and Wright have some seriously flawed theologies that are never noted. Regarding the secular authors, Keller generally quotes them sympathetically. The casual reader would think, "cool, this guy finds truth and wisdom in my favorite novel." I am sure Keller would say, "yep, that atheist novelist has some truth because they reflect the image of God." but I come away thinking, "Keller needs to immerse his mind in orthodox writing not secular writing because he is syncretizing way too much!"

Of particular concern is his serious error about evolution/creation, criteria for the true church, and the ultimate purpose for the cross. Interestingly, he contradicts himself about evolution (becoming more accurate as the book progresses). His fundamental error, which he never corrects, lies in accepting the conclusions of science unquestioningly whereas he has obviously questioned the traditional interpretation of Scripture. That is a gross violation of the doctrine of knowledge, which he himself quotes. Additionally, he casts a very broad tent in defining "Which Churches are really Christian" only to later tighten his definition, making it more accurate. It is like he is trying to bait people along. But it leaves me wondering, "Which statement is the real Timothy Keller? Does he believe in a violent chaotic beginning at the Big Bang or does he believe in a beautiful Triune Creation Dance; does he believe everyone who adheres to the early Creeds is a Christian (thereby including Romanists) or does he limit the Christian community to those who trust Christ's works not their own (thereby excluding Romanists)?"

He has a lot of respect for CS Lewis and in many ways Keller is like him. Mere Christianity has a lot of good stuff, but it is seriously flawed at several points. I read Mere Christianity just after I got saved and was enthralled; providentially God blinded my eyes to the highly unorthodox portions. In the Lord's plan for my life that book was used to stimulate my thinking and led to further exploration and learning. Just like I would not hand it to a skeptic or new Christian without some caveats and explanations, I would not hand The Reason for God to a skeptic or new Christian without some cautionary comments, clarification and follow-up.

A must read if you want the pastoral answers to the difficult questions of Christianity.

Seeing a Christian apologetic on the New York Times Best Seller list arrested my attention. Having heard the quality of Timothy Keller's spoken messages, I assumed the book would be a well-done apologetic. Yet, for a book defending the Christian faith to join the list of national best sellers, I anticipated it would need to connect with a broad audience in a compelling way. I was not disappointed. It is an excellent work of apologetics that is clearly and uniquely directed at arguments of the modern skeptic.

Keller's style is respectful and winsome, yet clear and persuasive. He builds his broad argument for Christianity on the premise that a leap of faith is required as much for the skeptic as for the believer. He explains, "All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B." He explains that if the skeptic and the believer will wrestle with the evidence behind their view, as well as the evidence for the view of the other, it will lead to holding our particular position "with greater clarity and greater humility." More than any apologetic book I've ever read, the author uniquely and cogently deals with issues relevant to our current culture. Keller's ability to speak to today's well-educated, sophisticated and hip skeptic has likely developed through his metropolitan pastoral ministry in New York City.

In the first half of the book, the author deals with seven of the most universal arguments against the Christian faith. In the second half he provides reasons to believe in the claims of Christianity. Keller draws from many great Christian thinkers such as C.S. Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien, Soren Kirkegaard, Augustine, N.T. Wright, Peter Kreeft, Alvin Plantinga and Alasdair MacIntyre. He also relies on historians, C. John Sommerville and Rodney Stark. In addition, he quotes and then counters the arguments of well-known atheist authors such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Not only would the book challenge skeptics to think deeper about Christianity but it would also give believers a greater sense of the rationality and reasonability of their faith. The respectful tone, genuine empathy and even-handed consideration he gives to the skeptic, relativist and atheist is refreshing and appealing. The book is not equipped with moving stories or loaded with masterful and memorable quotes. Yet, it is persuasive, intelligent and accessible to the average reader. The respectful approach the book takes toward doubters would make it popular with skeptics investigating Christianity as well as with those wanting to provide an apologetic to an unbeliever.

A clear distinction is made between pharisaical, self-righteous and judgmental brands of Christianity that are all too common; and grace based faith in Jesus Christ. Though Keller is a Presbyterian minister, his Reform theology is not prominent nor is it promoted. He ends the book with a strong but cautionary encouragement to become part of a local church. Some Christians may be bothered by a few of Keller's conclusions. For instance, I personally feel he gives up too much in espousing theistic evolution. Yet, it should not deter more conservative believers from reading the book or recommending it to their unbelieving friends.

An incredible explanation of faith for the people in today's culture. One of the clearest and most intelligent discussions of the reasonableness of believing that I have ever read. If there were 6 stars I would award it 6 stars. This belongs in the hands of every agnostic, skeptic, "Sunday and Easter only" Christian and honest, intelligent seeker of truth.

"The REason for God" is a well-planned book which deals with modern issues very well. Very impressive array of issues.

For anyone familiar with Keller as the pastor/teacher of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan and already acquainted with his thoughtful, winsome teaching style, The Reason for God will read as an extension of these qualities in print. The book is an engaging, enjoyable read, relevant to contemporary skepticism about Christianity, and a faithful exposition of the historic Christian message.

Skeptics will find in Keller a friend who has listened to their que