Questions for Discussion and Reflection:
1. Is it an oversimplification to summarize Keller’s chapter as saying, essentially, that “we lose any authority to label things as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ without a foundational belief in God.” In other words, to put it succinctly, we can’t call things “good” if we don’t’ acknowledge “God”. If this is oversimplified, how so?
2. Keller writes, “I have not tried to prove the existence of God to you. My goal has been to show you that you already know God is there” (p. 156). Does he accomplish this task, or might the skeptic say that he merely shows that we “wish” God were there? Is there a difference between the two?
3. It might be said that Keller doesn’t show us that we already know that God (the Judeo-Christian biblical God) already exists, but at best only shows that we believe some concept of a god (some spiritual creational force) already exists. Is this a fair criticism? Is even this more modest aim important in leading to finding the reason for the upper-case God?
4. Keller argues that humans sense that some acts are morally wrong and others morally right, and that this is evidence that we inherently recognize God’s existence – ie, that the world is ‘broken’ in some way (see p. 155-6). Do you believe in Keller’s premise – that there is a shared sense of right and wrong that is universally accepted? Or do you feel that right and wrong is culturally or historically based? Is an ‘evolving’ sense of right and wrong fatal to Keller’s argument?