 |
The Veritas Forum: Belief in an Age of Skepticism?
Uploaded by: ucberkeleyevents
Video Description:
"Belief in an Age of Skepticism?"
March 4, 2008, at The University of California, Berkeley
Noted pastor and author Dr. Tim Keller discusses the place of exclusive truth in a pluralistic society in Wheeler Auditorium, followed by a Q &A session.
Hosted by Reformed University Fellowship, Dr. Keller's talk is part of The Veritas Forum at Cal, following Francis Collins' lecture in February on Christianity and science.
For more Veritas Forum recordings, visit: http://www.veritas.org/media
Tags for this video: berkeley california keller religion uc ucberkeley university veritas
Find more videos in the "Education" category
See more videos uploaded by ucberkeleyevents
| University of Florida student Tasered at Kerry forum | CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS: Dahlia Wasfi at Iraq Forum | Randy Pausch Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams |
 |  |  |
| Middle East World Economic Forum 2007 - Queen Rania | nvestorChart.com Open House 2.1 ForumTalk | World Economic Forum Pre-Davos 2008 Press Conference |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
Critical thinking requires being careful, but doesn't have to be complicated. I think of logic as a sort of codified common sense.
The scary thing is: once you learn about logical fallacies, you start noticing them in many places: in newspaper articles, in political speeches, in textbooks, in everyday conversations! Dealing with all THAT can get complicated, especially when those around you don't share the desire to think critically.
Whether you agree with Keller or not he is a man that has managed to grow a church in one of the most secular cities on the planet-New York. The fact that is has grown to such an extent warrants some thought. Keller is known for spending hours on open Q&A sessions with secular folk after each service, and this shows commitment to what he believes.
I still think Keller's presentation is very good, he's clearly a humble guy and I would be disappointed / shocked to find someone try to argue, seriously, that humilty is not a positive trait.
Frankie if you haven't read it, let me know and I'll send you my copy to you, international post.
1) one doesn't go to hell *because* one doesn't believe; that doesn't clearly present the actual circumstance. One goes to hell for committing moral crimes. If you don't do anything wrong, there's nothing to worry about. But if you're guilty, you pay for your crimes unless you've been pardoned.
2) If I went to a doctor who told me I had cancer, would it make sense to say, "How arrogant and intolerance!" and walk away? At times we don't like to hear the truth, but it's true nonetheless.
But your question of how reliable is our ability to find out the truth is a good one. How we know what we know is at the heart of many issues and most of the time, we don't even bother to ask the question.
I think we have several ways of knowing, for example, our rational faculties, observation and experiment, intuition, and trusting credible authorities.
I hope that's the case but reading on the bible, it says otherwise, so as other religions. Their god is jealous and takes pleasure to be worshiped and takes grudge when not.
frankie, I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Bible *does* teach this: people are condemned for wrong behavior, not wrong belief (see Revelations ch. 20 or James ch. 2, Matthew chs 5 & 12).
God only punishes the guilty. The problem is, we are all guilty. That's what Jesus being the "Savior" is about. The name implies one is "saved from" something. And in fact, Jesus saves one from the consequences of one's own wrongdoing.
1st, even with the word "yet", the statement is still a philosophical claim, not a scientific one (i.e., it's not in the category of a testable scientific hypothesis like "humans are made of carbon"; it's a worldview claim.)
2nd, how do you know 3+9=12, or that someone loves you, or that murder is wrong, or that China exists? Would you (1) regard these as true, and if so, (2) is it the scientific method that leads you to these truths? If not, then there are other ways to know truth.
What are these other ways to know truth are you trying to propose?
What I would consider alternate methods of learning truth aren't really proposals of anything new, they've been known for millennia, e.g., rational intuition and reflection which gives us things like logic and math; moral intuition (i.e., murder is wrong); credible authorities, from which we probably learn most of our truth, like China's existence or other news; and even observation, like what you saw on the way to work
This is one example of where trust of credible authorities comes in as a way of knowing truth. When you say "we" you don't mean you or me, you mean some (hopefully) trustworthy scientists will use the scientific method to come to some answer. Those of us not doing the testing must decide if we can trust those who do.
It's intellectually dishonest when any church dismisses healthy skepticism about its extraordinary claims. If the church wants someone to believe, e.g., Jesus' resurrection, they need to provide persuasive evidence, not just confident claims. Sounds like the church let you down, but it hasn't stopped your pursuit of truth.