The Reason for God

1.Keller opens with the common assertion that "all religions are basically the same" or that "no one religion can be right and the rest wrong." What is the emotional appeal of that view? Where have you heard it most often — from friends, culture, social media?

1.Keller describes sitting with people in his congregation who have experienced devastating loss and who ask, "How could a good God allow this?" Before you engage the arguments, sit with that question personally: Have you ever asked it yourself, or has someone close to you asked it? What did it feel like?

1.Keller quotes the common complaint that Christianity's moral rules restrict personal freedom and individual self-expression. How prevalent is this objection in the culture around you? Where do you most often encounter it?

1.Keller acknowledges the genuine historical evils done in the name of Christianity without flinching. How did you respond to his willingness to admit the church's failures? Does intellectual honesty about Christian history strengthen or weaken his overall case, in your view?

1.What is your instinctive reaction to the traditional Christian doctrine of hell? Where did that reaction come from — upbringing, culture, personal experience, theology?

1.How prevalent is the assumption that "science has disproved God" in your workplace, school, or social circles? What specific scientific findings or arguments are usually cited to support it?

1.What is your own history with the Bible — have you read it extensively, occasionally, or rarely? What is your default assumption about its reliability going into this chapter?

1.Keller describes the Interlude as a transition from "clearing away objections" to "building a positive case." Why might this two-step structure be more persuasive than simply leading with arguments for God's existence? What is he assuming about his reader's state of mind?

1.Keller opens Part Two by arguing that the skeptic also requires faith — faith that the universe has no personal origin. He says that theism and atheism are both metaphysical commitments that go beyond what science can demonstrate. Do you think that is a fair characterization of atheism?

1.Keller opens by observing that virtually all people, in all cultures and times, have shared certain core moral intuitions: that gratuitous cruelty is wrong, that justice matters, that human dignity deserves respect. Where do you think these intuitions come from? What is the strongest naturalistic explanation you have encountered?

1.How do you typically hear the word "sin" used in culture — in churches, in media, in everyday conversation? What associations does it carry? How does Keller's definition of sin differ from the typical popular understanding?

1.Keller draws a sharp contrast between "religion" (I obey, therefore God accepts me) and "gospel" (God accepts me in Christ, therefore I obey). Before reading this chapter, how would you have described the relationship between behavior and God's acceptance? Has Keller's framing shifted anything for you?

1.Many people find the doctrine of the atonement — that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners — morally troubling, even offensive. What is the most common objection you have heard? Before working through Keller's response, try to state the objection as charitably and powerfully as you can.

1.Keller quotes Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15 that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile." Paul stakes everything on the historical resurrection. How does this differ from a religious worldview that says "it doesn't matter whether it literally happened — the spiritual meaning is what counts"?

1.When you wrote down your most pressing question or doubt at the end of Week 1, what was it? Return to it now. How has Keller addressed it — or not? Has your thinking changed, deepened, or stiffened? Be specific.