EASTERN CONFERENCE
#1 Celtics vs. #8 Hawks
What I'm looking for:
Matchups will determine whether the Hawks can win 1 game in this series. If I were Woodson, I'd consider putting Josh Smith on Perkins (not really an offensive threat) to allow him to roam and block shots, since straight up man defense is a weakness. Joe Johnson and Allen should cancel each other out, but the Celts have demonstrated advantages at SF and PF.
I have to admit, I've enjoyed watching the Celts this year. I've always maintained the Warriors should have drafted Pierce the year they swapped Vince for Jamison (interesting that Jamison has turned out to be the better player after all), and he's been playing within the system without devolving into too much 1-1 play. KG has elevated the entire defense, and while I wish he'd play in the low post more to take advantage of his ridiculous athleticism and length, he seems to have found the perfect fit for his skill set.
Plus, you just know that Cassell is going to have at least one monster clutch performance this offseason.
On the Hawks, Horford is a beast, but still has a lot of growing up and learning to do.
Favorite plays
Celtics: They have a beautiful set play where KG flashes to the high post, receives the entry pass from Rondo, draws the attention of both post players, and then slips a dump off pass to Perkins for the dunk.
Hawks: Haven't watched them much, so I'll just say any time Josh Smith is on the run in the open floor, either chasing down a breakway for a block or swooping in for his own monster dunk.
Who I'm rooting for:
Celtics. They have Leon Powe. Go Bears!
#2 Pistons vs. #7 Sixers
What I'm looking for:
I should like the Pistons. I rooted for them against the Shaq-Kobe-Karl-Payton Lakers. They play solid, fundamental, smart basketball, with good defensive rotations and a versatile offensive system featuring Rip running off multiple screens. Plus, Tayshaun is one of my favorite players to watch. Their bench is deeper than it's ever been (Maxiell's block of a Chandler alley-oop a few weeks ago is one of the best blocks I've ever seen). So why do I root against the Pistons?
Arrogance.
It feels like their whole attitude the past few seasons has been that they were obviously the best team, they just "beat themselves." Refusing to give credit to the teams that beat them, is highly irritating. This primarily comes from Sheed (he who has never committed a foul, in his mind). So, while I want to see the Pistons take on the Celts, Cavs, Wizards, or Magic, I won't really be rooting for them that hard against these Sixers... who, by the way, looked really awful when we went to see them against the Warriors.
Favorite plays
Pistons: He might not get much of a chance in this series with Igoudala (a decent defender) on him, but I enjoy watching Tayshaun in the post - his baby hook looks like a praying mantis reaching out and grabbing its prey.
Sixers: I can't think of anything, so I'll just look for some growth from the other AI on this big stage.
Who I'm rooting for:
Pistons. I'd like to see them advance to get taken down by the Celts, Cavs, or Magic (maybe the Wizards if they get by Cleveland).
#3 Magic vs. #6 Raptors
What I'm looking for:
The Raptors don't excite me that much. Bosh was severely unimpressive in national team play. I am interested to see how Calderon plays since I haven't gotten that much of a chance to watch him.
The thing with the Magic is that when you watch, you can't help but be drawn to the huge muscleman in the middle. You never know when he's going to do something spectacular. I'm looking forward to the battles he'll have with Yao and Oden over the next 10 years.
Favorite plays
Magic: Hedo to Superman for the alley-oop. Dwight's height, strength, and leaping ability almost makes it unfair.
Raptors: Can't think of anything here either, but I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised by Calderon.
Who I'm rooting for:
Magic.
#4 Cavs vs. #5 Wizards
What I'm looking for:
Two seasons ago, this was one of the most entertaining playoff series. Agent Zero and Lebron took it to an HNL ('hole 'notha level - thanks to youth group's Sam Chen) in their mano-a-mano duel, with Lebron winning out with what may have been a travel. This year, Gilbert isn't fully healthy and will come off the bench, Lebron is also hurting. Plus, Caron has became a full-fledged superstar (I'm sure Laker fans aren't nearly as pissed now since it they eventually swapped Shaq for Gasol and Odom, which ain't a bad return at all) and Jamison has turned out to be better than I thought.
With Lebron hurting, the Cavs need someone else to step up on offense. Former Warrior #1 Joe Smith (grrrr), Wally Sza;adlfjwer, Boobie, Bond villain Zydrunas, whoever it might be. The Wizards might have too many weapons otherwise.
Favorite plays
Cavs: With Lebron hurting, hopefully Coach Brown can find some ways to get him easy buckets on the break or catching the ball in the half court going towards the hoop rather than starting from a standstill each time, requiring him to bulldoze through the entire Wiz D.
Wiz: There's something aesthetically amusing about the Jamison flip shot now that he's not on the Warriors anymore.
Who I'm rooting for:
Cavs. Even though the Wizards might be on a better roll right now, it'd be fun to see Lebron potentially single-handedly destroy one of the other East title hopefuls.
Bring on the playoffs!
Friday, April 18, 2008
NBA Playoffs round 1 - Western Conference
The playoffs start tomorrow! Basketball on almost every night for the next 1.5 months... I'm stoked. Here are some thoughts on the individual series...
Since there are plenty of other sites with better breakdowns, analysis, and predictions of each matchup, I'll write from the perspective of things I'm looking for (strategy, matchups, favorite plays and players) and who I'm rooting for in each series.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
#1 Lakers vs. #8 Warriors
Wait... doh. It was a pretty good season overall, nonetheless.
#1 Lakers vs. #8 Nuggets
What I'm looking for:
Fisher can't stick with AI. Neither Walton nor Odom can guard Carmelo either, so coach Phil will have to be selective on who to guard when he sics Kobe in critical defensive situations, depending on whether AI or Melo is hot at the time.
Meanwhile, the Nuggets are horrible on D - "getting bailed out by a help shot blocker" in Camby does not qualify as even passable effort. I expect high scores throughout this series, and for the Lakers to put on a passing clinic that will be aesthetically pleasing. Odom/Kobe should be able to penetrate into the lane and dish short to Gasol for jumpers and layups, or to Fisher/Walton/Farmar/Vujacic for open 3s.
Favorite plays
Lakers: The triangle offense when it's being executed efficiently (and it will be in this series, considering the Nuggets D).
Nuggets: Carmelo going one-on-one from the wing against any defender - he has the best arsenal of weapons from the triple threat position: jab step, up fakes, step-backs, and an explosive first step.
Who I'm rooting for:
Lakers. The Nuggets have often ranked among my least favorite teams because of their tendency to play only 1-1 on offense, not playing any defense, and generally having an overall arrogant, individualistic attitude epitomized by Kenyon. Plus, the Nuggets beat out the Warriors, and I'm feeling just a bit petty.
#2 Hornets vs. #7 Mavericks
What I'm looking for:
Chris Paul is one of my favorite players to watch in the league. Shally (who thinks he looks like Carlton from Fresh Prince) and I had the chance to see him carve up the Warriors when they came to Oracle in February and he was positively textbook in his decision-making on the offensive end, doing an OK job on defense against Monta, and coming up with clutch plays on both ends in the 4th quarter. He gets into the lane so easily because of his quickness and handle, and when he does, it's fascinating to see him make snap judgments whether to fade away, shoot a floater, find Chandler underneath for an alley-oop, or to spin in mid-air and toss a pin-point pass to Stojakovic or West for the jumper.
Kidd's lost a step and will need help guarding Paul in this series, but the Mavs have looked better as he's gotten more comfortable. Nowitzki no longer has to create for himself or for others every trip down the floor, and has wide open 17-ftrs (read: layups) quite often now.
I'm hoping for USA Basketball to take this series' PGs to Beijing this summer.
Favorite plays
Hornets: Chris Paul doing anything, but in particular the short alleyoops to Chandler after drawing two or more defenders in the lane.
Mavericks: Pick and roll with Kidd and Nowitzki in order to get a shorter defender switched onto Dirk, who can then back in or shoot over the top unimpeded.
Who I'm rooting for:
I can go either way on this one. The Mavericks might be a tougher/more intriguing matching up later in the playoffs, but the Hornets are more fun to watch. I'll pick the Hornets here.
#3 Spurs vs. #6 Suns
What I'm looking for:
For all those that vilify Manu for flopping... he primarily flops on offense in attempts to get foul calls. Raja Bell? He is a defensive flopper (a la Fisher, who robbed the Warriors of a chance at a win a few weeks ago by pulling Monta down and getting the foul called on Monta), and defensive flopping is far more irritating to me than offensive flopper.
Anyway, this is clearly the most evenly-matched and highest-quality first round matchup. Even though they have the home court advantage, I see the Spurs as the underdog in this one due to their injury problems and the fact that they've been playing pretty bad the last few weeks.
Favorite plays
Spurs: Since Shaq is most comfortable defending a back-to-the-basket post player, I'd expect the Spurs to bring Duncan out to set screens for Parker and Ginobili more often to force Shaq away from the lane. I'm curious to see whether Duncan matches up with Shaq or Amare most of the time.
Suns: The set offense starting with the Amare-Nash pick and roll is one of the most devastating yet simple basketball plays to watch, all centered on Nash's decision-making ability - drop to the roller, drive it in, kick it to a shooter, or take the shot himself?
Who I'm rooting for:
If you know me... you should know the answer to this one.
#4 Jazz vs. #5 Rockets
What I'm looking for:
Deron Williams is another one of my favorite players to watch in the league - his systematic dismantling of the Warriors and then the Spurs in last year's playoffs left quite the impression on me. He, Boozer, Okur, AK47, and Korver will still have to execute perfectly to score against the super-solid Rockets D. I expect Battier to spend much of his time matched up with Deron since AK47 isn't as much of an offensive threat. I'm also curious to see whether Adelman will trot out Mutombo or Hayes to match up with Boozer, since the other will need to chase Okur around the perimeter. One possibility is to play Mutombo (matched up with Boozer) and have Scola chase Okur around, providing more of an offensive weapon on the other side of the court.
Favorite plays
Rockets: Will T-Mac be disciplined enough to test AK47 off the dribble rather than settling for long jump shots that are easily contested? If so the Jazz don't have any other shot blockers once he gets to the rim.
Jazz: Since everyone knows about the Deron-Boozer pick and roll, I'll want to see some sets featuring AK47 as the decision-maker to force T-Mac to play some defense as well.
Who I'm rooting for:
Jazz. They're more fun to watch and have a textbook offensive system to study.
Eastern Conference in my next post...
Since there are plenty of other sites with better breakdowns, analysis, and predictions of each matchup, I'll write from the perspective of things I'm looking for (strategy, matchups, favorite plays and players) and who I'm rooting for in each series.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
#1 Lakers vs. #8 Warriors
Wait... doh. It was a pretty good season overall, nonetheless.
#1 Lakers vs. #8 Nuggets
What I'm looking for:
Fisher can't stick with AI. Neither Walton nor Odom can guard Carmelo either, so coach Phil will have to be selective on who to guard when he sics Kobe in critical defensive situations, depending on whether AI or Melo is hot at the time.
Meanwhile, the Nuggets are horrible on D - "getting bailed out by a help shot blocker" in Camby does not qualify as even passable effort. I expect high scores throughout this series, and for the Lakers to put on a passing clinic that will be aesthetically pleasing. Odom/Kobe should be able to penetrate into the lane and dish short to Gasol for jumpers and layups, or to Fisher/Walton/Farmar/Vujacic for open 3s.
Favorite plays
Lakers: The triangle offense when it's being executed efficiently (and it will be in this series, considering the Nuggets D).
Nuggets: Carmelo going one-on-one from the wing against any defender - he has the best arsenal of weapons from the triple threat position: jab step, up fakes, step-backs, and an explosive first step.
Who I'm rooting for:
Lakers. The Nuggets have often ranked among my least favorite teams because of their tendency to play only 1-1 on offense, not playing any defense, and generally having an overall arrogant, individualistic attitude epitomized by Kenyon. Plus, the Nuggets beat out the Warriors, and I'm feeling just a bit petty.
#2 Hornets vs. #7 Mavericks
What I'm looking for:
Chris Paul is one of my favorite players to watch in the league. Shally (who thinks he looks like Carlton from Fresh Prince) and I had the chance to see him carve up the Warriors when they came to Oracle in February and he was positively textbook in his decision-making on the offensive end, doing an OK job on defense against Monta, and coming up with clutch plays on both ends in the 4th quarter. He gets into the lane so easily because of his quickness and handle, and when he does, it's fascinating to see him make snap judgments whether to fade away, shoot a floater, find Chandler underneath for an alley-oop, or to spin in mid-air and toss a pin-point pass to Stojakovic or West for the jumper.
Kidd's lost a step and will need help guarding Paul in this series, but the Mavs have looked better as he's gotten more comfortable. Nowitzki no longer has to create for himself or for others every trip down the floor, and has wide open 17-ftrs (read: layups) quite often now.
I'm hoping for USA Basketball to take this series' PGs to Beijing this summer.
Favorite plays
Hornets: Chris Paul doing anything, but in particular the short alleyoops to Chandler after drawing two or more defenders in the lane.
Mavericks: Pick and roll with Kidd and Nowitzki in order to get a shorter defender switched onto Dirk, who can then back in or shoot over the top unimpeded.
Who I'm rooting for:
I can go either way on this one. The Mavericks might be a tougher/more intriguing matching up later in the playoffs, but the Hornets are more fun to watch. I'll pick the Hornets here.
#3 Spurs vs. #6 Suns
What I'm looking for:
For all those that vilify Manu for flopping... he primarily flops on offense in attempts to get foul calls. Raja Bell? He is a defensive flopper (a la Fisher, who robbed the Warriors of a chance at a win a few weeks ago by pulling Monta down and getting the foul called on Monta), and defensive flopping is far more irritating to me than offensive flopper.
Anyway, this is clearly the most evenly-matched and highest-quality first round matchup. Even though they have the home court advantage, I see the Spurs as the underdog in this one due to their injury problems and the fact that they've been playing pretty bad the last few weeks.
Favorite plays
Spurs: Since Shaq is most comfortable defending a back-to-the-basket post player, I'd expect the Spurs to bring Duncan out to set screens for Parker and Ginobili more often to force Shaq away from the lane. I'm curious to see whether Duncan matches up with Shaq or Amare most of the time.
Suns: The set offense starting with the Amare-Nash pick and roll is one of the most devastating yet simple basketball plays to watch, all centered on Nash's decision-making ability - drop to the roller, drive it in, kick it to a shooter, or take the shot himself?
Who I'm rooting for:
If you know me... you should know the answer to this one.
#4 Jazz vs. #5 Rockets
What I'm looking for:
Deron Williams is another one of my favorite players to watch in the league - his systematic dismantling of the Warriors and then the Spurs in last year's playoffs left quite the impression on me. He, Boozer, Okur, AK47, and Korver will still have to execute perfectly to score against the super-solid Rockets D. I expect Battier to spend much of his time matched up with Deron since AK47 isn't as much of an offensive threat. I'm also curious to see whether Adelman will trot out Mutombo or Hayes to match up with Boozer, since the other will need to chase Okur around the perimeter. One possibility is to play Mutombo (matched up with Boozer) and have Scola chase Okur around, providing more of an offensive weapon on the other side of the court.
Favorite plays
Rockets: Will T-Mac be disciplined enough to test AK47 off the dribble rather than settling for long jump shots that are easily contested? If so the Jazz don't have any other shot blockers once he gets to the rim.
Jazz: Since everyone knows about the Deron-Boozer pick and roll, I'll want to see some sets featuring AK47 as the decision-maker to force T-Mac to play some defense as well.
Who I'm rooting for:
Jazz. They're more fun to watch and have a textbook offensive system to study.
Eastern Conference in my next post...
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Notes on Tim Keller's lecture "Belief in an Age of Skepticism"
About a month ago, I attended a Veritas lecture at Stanford by Rev. Tim Keller from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC about "The Reason for God." In short, I found it to be a good synopsis of some common apologetics arguments phrased in a much more eloquent and educated way than I could ever come up with. The lecture and subsequent Q&A session can be found online at Google Video, but since I remember best when I take notes, I took the liberty of outlining the lecture below along with video references. You can check out the notes and pick and choose sections of each video to watch if you don't have time to see the whole thing.
Feel free to comment if there are any ideas that you want to discuss...
Tim Keller - "Belief in an Age of Skepticism" - Lecture 2008-03-05
Reasons for God
I) Why important?
II) How does it work?
III) What are those reasons?
I) Why important? (1:40-8:10)
Important for skeptic because:
- Robust orthodox belief in God is not diminishing but is in fact believing, despite the belief that as society became more sophisticated/advanced, less interest in God (secularization thesis)
-- in Asia/Africa, Christianity/Islam expanding like crazy - ex. Korea 1-40%, China more Christians than in US, 2 million US Episcopalians, 17 million in Nigeria
- in pluralistic society, in order to get around, must put ourselves into each others' shoes and understand why we/they believe
- new atheism (Dawkins) - respect for religion is bad
Important for believer because:
- if you admit and deal with doubts, your foundation is strengthened when troubles come
II) How does it work? (8:10-15:20)
Three reasons:
1) intellectual - see part 3
2) interpreted personal experience
ex. tragedies
- interpretation 1 - "I can't handle life alone, I need God"
- interpretation 2 - "I don't want a God who lets this happen"
ex. made it to the top
- interpretation 1 - "Who needs God?"
- interpretation 2 - "I've made it to the top and I still feel empty"
3) social
- sociology of knowledge - your community (ppl you need and admire) determines what you want to believe
- "If you were born in Madagascar, you wouldn't be a Christian!" = I have thought things out, you are a product of your environment.
-- response: "If *you* were born in Madagascar, you wouldn't be a secular pluralist."
Not fair to say "I'm rational and you're socially conditioned."
III) What are those reasons?
Three Rungs on a Ladder
1) takes as much faith to disbelieve in God as to believe in God
2) it takes *more* faith to disbelieve in God as to believe in God
3) you can reason to the point of probability, it takes personal involvement/commitment to see life change
Rung #1 (15:20-36:50)
Arguments for non-existence of God
1) "senseless and pointless" evil and suffering
- good God not powerful enough to stop it
- God powerful enough to stop it but chooses not to
- therefore, no all-powerful and all-good God
Doesn't work because: how do you know it's pointless and senseless? How do you know God doesn't have a good reason for it that you can't think of?
Example: "Look in this pup tent, are there any St. Bernards?" Can be seen. "Are there any parameciums?" Can't tell.
2) believers in God are so horrible
- human heart can take any philosophy or view of God and use it as a warrant for violence ("I have the truth and you don't so you're a second class citizen")
-- ex. Buddhism -> Shintoism -> Japan in WWII
-- ex. Christianity -> Crusades, shooting abortion doctors
-- ex. Islam -> terrorism
-- ex. atheism -> Communism -> Russian killing fields (If I can get away with a bad act, I can get away with it, no judgment day)
3) agnostic approach
- 5 blind men who come up on elephant and describe it diff ways, so no one has full picture of God - we are all blind men!
-- analogy breaks down b/c it assumes the storyteller can know that all the blind men are blind, and can see the whole elephant - having superior knowledge
-- appearance of humility, but it is an arrogant claim to exclusive truth
- instead, say "maybe one of these folks is right"
4) "you have to prove God to me"
- this is a leap of faith that God is something that you can prove
- makes sense for a Creator God not to fit into the universe
- ex. there is no non-circular way to prove that your memory works, can't prove a belief in the inherent human dignity
- ex. when Soviets sent first cosmonaut to space, felt that meant no God. CS Lewis' response: can't relate to God like a person on 1st story to person on 3rd story, rather like Hamlet to Shakespeare (creation to creator) - Hamlet can't figure anything out about Shakespeare by running around backstage, but only if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play
Rung #2 (36:50-51:25)
Argument: The things we see and know in the world make more sense if there is a God than if there is not
3 things that make more sense w/ God
1) "fine tuning principle" / anthropic principle
- very specific natural "dials" in order for human life to occur - 1/1 trillion chance that world could support life
- Dawkins' argument - multitude of alternate universes, ours is just chance
-- counterargument - dealing 20 straight aces, we don't believe that it's chance
- would anyone base their life on a 1/trillion chance?
2) love and beauty
- alternate explanation: generated by chemicals in brain solely for purpose of furthering your genetic code
- feels significant, but it's not - in the end, whether you're loving or cruel, makes no difference
3) human rights
- can't prove it, not self-evident - why?
a) there is God and God created us in his image, so we're sacred
b) nature
- doesn't work. Ex. woman who lived by creek - evolution loves death more than you or me, we value individual supremely, but nature values life not at all. Can't be produced from a sea of amino acids and then turn and shake fist at it
- nature = survival of strongest, which is opposite of human rights
c) society creates/defines human rights
- wrong b/c then that means genocide is only wrong b/c we say so, and majority can exploit minority, which is not human rights
Rung #3 (51:25-56:36)
Analogy: falling off a cliff, see a branch
If I grab it, it may hold me up, it may not, you may be certain, but you don't know until you grab it
Weak faith in a strong object is infinitely more important than strong faith in a weak object b/c it is the object of faith that is more important
Analogy: hiring
Can only do so much background check, etc. but need to hire to know if you are the right person
Christianity is only religion where God becomes a person - why important?
Analogy: Dorothy Sayers' detective books - she wrote herself into the book and rescues the characters b/c she loves them so much
God saw his creation, fell in love with us, and wrote Himself into the play to rescue us
Tim Keller - "Belief in an Age of Skepticism" - Q&A 2008-03-05
1) 0:00-4:00 - Dawkins' "rotating teacup around Earth" argument - can't prove it, can't prove God = "Verification Principle"
A: You can't empirically prove the Verification Principle. Science only works on empirical objects, but you can't base your life on empiricism.
2) 4:40-6:40 Joseph Campbell quote that God transcends existence and so we can't know him
A: Right in honoring the size/scope of God, wrong in saying that God can't be described/fit into categories of what we know
3) 6:40-11:30 Francis Collins talk about evolution and Christianity co-existing
A: Christians are on all different sides of the spectrum, but to determine Christianity, the question really is - did Jesus rise from the dead? Diff viewpoints include theistic evolution, progressive creationism, etc. Try reading The Secular Revolution by Christian Smith about the secularization of higher institutions.
4) 11:30-18:40 How is Christianity different from Judaism, Islam, and other religions?
A: Every other religion has a prophet that says "I am here to help you find God." Only Christianity has a founder who says, "I am God come to find you." Christ makes unbelievable claims - ex. "I saw Satan fall from heaven," "For years I have been sending you prophets and wise men and you killed them all," "Before Abraham existed, I am". Christianity will either be better or worse (fraudulent) than other religions, but cannot be the same.
So, check out whether Christianity is true:
- are Gospels basically reliable? Check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - Gospels not oral traditions but oral histories from eyewitnesses (who remain in Gospel to authenticate Gospel)
- did Jesus rise from the dead? Check out The Resurrection of the Son of God - NT Wright - ex. 1st ppl to see risen Christ are women, who were of such low status that their testimony is not admissible evidence in court - so it wouldn't make sense to write them into the document, unless it's true.
5) 18:40-24:30 What does it mean for you to be Christian?
A: Original way in college - intellectually wrestling with evil, suffering, etc.; personally saw weaknesses in experiences in college; socially saw Christians who didn't care about justice and non-Christians who did. Finally met Christians who did believe in justice. 2002 had thyroid cancer, am I going to die? While recuperating, read Resurrection of the Son of God, read everything while confronting death, took me down to a new level of certainty intellectually (while already immersed personally). If the resurrection is true, then the universe is an ocean of beauty and glory, and we're locked temporarily into a window of darkness and evil.
6) 24:30-30:40 What does belief and faith mean?
A: When I'm falling off a cliff and I see a branch that can save me, I may reason that it is strong enough to save me, but I need to grab it - I need to act on my reason - for it to be effective. In personal relationship with God, He may tell you things that you don't like to hear. If God is truly not of this world, then His Word will offend every culture on earth.
7) 30:40-35:00 Why value philosophical level of reasoning about evil instead of the "real" level of suffering we personally experience?
A: The struggle may be personal and people hide it behind the intellectual/philosophical. Goal is to strip away the philosophical level in order to cleanly deal with the personal level. Christian faith is only one where God says he loves us enough to subject himself to suffering, and can identify with us in suffering - losing a son, being betrayed by friends, etc. Now, I don't know why evil and suffering are there, but I know what it isn't - it isn't b/c He doesn't love us or doesn't care.
8) 35:00-39:10 Christianity is based on racial/cultural background - could there be a better one less hindered by it?
A: Christianity is on its way to becoming culture-neutral. Hindus primarily Indian. Buddhism primarily Asian. Muslims primarily Middle Eastern. Christian demographic center has migrated from Jewish to Greek to Eastern Europe (Armenia) to Western Europe to North America to China. With each migration, each culture influences/transforms the religion (ex. Greek philosophy of Trinity). Average evangelical Christian is now non-white. Now, Asian culture will be transformed by Christianity and will change Christian theology.
9) 39:10-45:15 How can you condemn other religions coming from other cultures and backgrounds to hell?
A: I don't condemn other people, I ask, "What do you do with the fact that Jesus claimed to be Son of God?" He's either the Way, or not. Christians don't know what happens to infants who die, and it's not my business. Christians don't believe you go to heaven b/c you're good, but b/c you know you need God's mercy and you admit your moral failure. The ethics between Christianity and other religions is similar, but the way we connect to God is different. We say the only way to heaven I know about is what I've been told - that I can't. Americans get the most bent out of shape about this b/c of Western Enlightenment thought, democracy, everyone gets a vote - rest of world has no problem with "one true religion" idea. Everyone in hell is there b/c they want to be - they want to be their own savior and lord, and they don't want to be in heaven with God pushing them around. People go to hell b/c they want to be, people go to heaven b/c Jesus is there and they want to be with him.
Feel free to comment if there are any ideas that you want to discuss...
Tim Keller - "Belief in an Age of Skepticism" - Lecture 2008-03-05
Reasons for God
I) Why important?
II) How does it work?
III) What are those reasons?
I) Why important? (1:40-8:10)
Important for skeptic because:
- Robust orthodox belief in God is not diminishing but is in fact believing, despite the belief that as society became more sophisticated/advanced, less interest in God (secularization thesis)
-- in Asia/Africa, Christianity/Islam expanding like crazy - ex. Korea 1-40%, China more Christians than in US, 2 million US Episcopalians, 17 million in Nigeria
- in pluralistic society, in order to get around, must put ourselves into each others' shoes and understand why we/they believe
- new atheism (Dawkins) - respect for religion is bad
Important for believer because:
- if you admit and deal with doubts, your foundation is strengthened when troubles come
II) How does it work? (8:10-15:20)
Three reasons:
1) intellectual - see part 3
2) interpreted personal experience
ex. tragedies
- interpretation 1 - "I can't handle life alone, I need God"
- interpretation 2 - "I don't want a God who lets this happen"
ex. made it to the top
- interpretation 1 - "Who needs God?"
- interpretation 2 - "I've made it to the top and I still feel empty"
3) social
- sociology of knowledge - your community (ppl you need and admire) determines what you want to believe
- "If you were born in Madagascar, you wouldn't be a Christian!" = I have thought things out, you are a product of your environment.
-- response: "If *you* were born in Madagascar, you wouldn't be a secular pluralist."
Not fair to say "I'm rational and you're socially conditioned."
III) What are those reasons?
Three Rungs on a Ladder
1) takes as much faith to disbelieve in God as to believe in God
2) it takes *more* faith to disbelieve in God as to believe in God
3) you can reason to the point of probability, it takes personal involvement/commitment to see life change
Rung #1 (15:20-36:50)
Arguments for non-existence of God
1) "senseless and pointless" evil and suffering
- good God not powerful enough to stop it
- God powerful enough to stop it but chooses not to
- therefore, no all-powerful and all-good God
Doesn't work because: how do you know it's pointless and senseless? How do you know God doesn't have a good reason for it that you can't think of?
Example: "Look in this pup tent, are there any St. Bernards?" Can be seen. "Are there any parameciums
2) believers in God are so horrible
- human heart can take any philosophy or view of God and use it as a warrant for violence ("I have the truth and you don't so you're a second class citizen")
-- ex. Buddhism -> Shintoism -> Japan in WWII
-- ex. Christianity -> Crusades, shooting abortion doctors
-- ex. Islam -> terrorism
-- ex. atheism -> Communism -> Russian killing fields (If I can get away with a bad act, I can get away with it, no judgment day)
3) agnostic approach
- 5 blind men who come up on elephant and describe it diff ways, so no one has full picture of God - we are all blind men!
-- analogy breaks down b/c it assumes the storyteller can know that all the blind men are blind, and can see the whole elephant - having superior knowledge
-- appearance of humility, but it is an arrogant claim to exclusive truth
- instead, say "maybe one of these folks is right"
4) "you have to prove God to me"
- this is a leap of faith that God is something that you can prove
- makes sense for a Creator God not to fit into the universe
- ex. there is no non-circular way to prove that your memory works, can't prove a belief in the inherent human dignity
- ex. when Soviets sent first cosmonaut to space, felt that meant no God. CS Lewis' response: can't relate to God like a person on 1st story to person on 3rd story, rather like Hamlet to Shakespeare (creation to creator) - Hamlet can't figure anything out about Shakespeare by running around backstage, but only if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play
Rung #2 (36:50-51:25)
Argument: The things we see and know in the world make more sense if there is a God than if there is not
3 things that make more sense w/ God
1) "fine tuning principle" / anthropic principle
- very specific natural "dials" in order for human life to occur - 1/1 trillion chance that world could support life
- Dawkins' argument - multitude of alternate universes, ours is just chance
-- counterargument - dealing 20 straight aces, we don't believe that it's chance
- would anyone base their life on a 1/trillion chance?
2) love and beauty
- alternate explanation: generated by chemicals in brain solely for purpose of furthering your genetic code
- feels significant, but it's not - in the end, whether you're loving or cruel, makes no difference
3) human rights
- can't prove it, not self-evident - why?
a) there is God and God created us in his image, so we're sacred
b) nature
- doesn't work. Ex. woman who lived by creek - evolution loves death more than you or me, we value individual supremely, but nature values life not at all. Can't be produced from a sea of amino acids and then turn and shake fist at it
- nature = survival of strongest, which is opposite of human rights
c) society creates/defines human rights
- wrong b/c then that means genocide is only wrong b/c we say so, and majority can exploit minority, which is not human rights
Rung #3 (51:25-56:36)
Analogy: falling off a cliff, see a branch
If I grab it, it may hold me up, it may not, you may be certain, but you don't know until you grab it
Weak faith in a strong object is infinitely more important than strong faith in a weak object b/c it is the object of faith that is more important
Analogy: hiring
Can only do so much background check, etc. but need to hire to know if you are the right person
Christianity is only religion where God becomes a person - why important?
Analogy: Dorothy Sayers' detective books - she wrote herself into the book and rescues the characters b/c she loves them so much
God saw his creation, fell in love with us, and wrote Himself into the play to rescue us
Tim Keller - "Belief in an Age of Skepticism" - Q&A 2008-03-05
1) 0:00-4:00 - Dawkins' "rotating teacup around Earth" argument - can't prove it, can't prove God = "Verification Principle"
A: You can't empirically prove the Verification Principle. Science only works on empirical objects, but you can't base your life on empiricism.
2) 4:40-6:40 Joseph Campbell quote that God transcends existence and so we can't know him
A: Right in honoring the size/scope of God, wrong in saying that God can't be described/fit into categories of what we know
3) 6:40-11:30 Francis Collins talk about evolution and Christianity co-existing
A: Christians are on all different sides of the spectrum, but to determine Christianity, the question really is - did Jesus rise from the dead? Diff viewpoints include theistic evolution, progressive creationism, etc. Try reading The Secular Revolution by Christian Smith about the secularization of higher institutions.
4) 11:30-18:40 How is Christianity different from Judaism, Islam, and other religions?
A: Every other religion has a prophet that says "I am here to help you find God." Only Christianity has a founder who says, "I am God come to find you." Christ makes unbelievable claims - ex. "I saw Satan fall from heaven," "For years I have been sending you prophets and wise men and you killed them all," "Before Abraham existed, I am". Christianity will either be better or worse (fraudulent) than other religions, but cannot be the same.
So, check out whether Christianity is true:
- are Gospels basically reliable? Check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - Gospels not oral traditions but oral histories from eyewitnesses (who remain in Gospel to authenticate Gospel)
- did Jesus rise from the dead? Check out The Resurrection of the Son of God - NT Wright - ex. 1st ppl to see risen Christ are women, who were of such low status that their testimony is not admissible evidence in court - so it wouldn't make sense to write them into the document, unless it's true.
5) 18:40-24:30 What does it mean for you to be Christian?
A: Original way in college - intellectually wrestling with evil, suffering, etc.; personally saw weaknesses in experiences in college; socially saw Christians who didn't care about justice and non-Christians who did. Finally met Christians who did believe in justice. 2002 had thyroid cancer, am I going to die? While recuperating, read Resurrection of the Son of God, read everything while confronting death, took me down to a new level of certainty intellectually (while already immersed personally). If the resurrection is true, then the universe is an ocean of beauty and glory, and we're locked temporarily into a window of darkness and evil.
6) 24:30-30:40 What does belief and faith mean?
A: When I'm falling off a cliff and I see a branch that can save me, I may reason that it is strong enough to save me, but I need to grab it - I need to act on my reason - for it to be effective. In personal relationship with God, He may tell you things that you don't like to hear. If God is truly not of this world, then His Word will offend every culture on earth.
7) 30:40-35:00 Why value philosophical level of reasoning about evil instead of the "real" level of suffering we personally experience?
A: The struggle may be personal and people hide it behind the intellectual/philosophical. Goal is to strip away the philosophical level in order to cleanly deal with the personal level. Christian faith is only one where God says he loves us enough to subject himself to suffering, and can identify with us in suffering - losing a son, being betrayed by friends, etc. Now, I don't know why evil and suffering are there, but I know what it isn't - it isn't b/c He doesn't love us or doesn't care.
8) 35:00-39:10 Christianity is based on racial/cultural background - could there be a better one less hindered by it?
A: Christianity is on its way to becoming culture-neutral. Hindus primarily Indian. Buddhism primarily Asian. Muslims primarily Middle Eastern. Christian demographic center has migrated from Jewish to Greek to Eastern Europe (Armenia) to Western Europe to North America to China. With each migration, each culture influences/transforms the religion (ex. Greek philosophy of Trinity). Average evangelical Christian is now non-white. Now, Asian culture will be transformed by Christianity and will change Christian theology.
9) 39:10-45:15 How can you condemn other religions coming from other cultures and backgrounds to hell?
A: I don't condemn other people, I ask, "What do you do with the fact that Jesus claimed to be Son of God?" He's either the Way, or not. Christians don't know what happens to infants who die, and it's not my business. Christians don't believe you go to heaven b/c you're good, but b/c you know you need God's mercy and you admit your moral failure. The ethics between Christianity and other religions is similar, but the way we connect to God is different. We say the only way to heaven I know about is what I've been told - that I can't. Americans get the most bent out of shape about this b/c of Western Enlightenment thought, democracy, everyone gets a vote - rest of world has no problem with "one true religion" idea. Everyone in hell is there b/c they want to be - they want to be their own savior and lord, and they don't want to be in heaven with God pushing them around. People go to hell b/c they want to be, people go to heaven b/c Jesus is there and they want to be with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)