Week 1: Introduction — The Leap of Doubt

1.Keller describes the congregation at Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan as filled with both fervent believers and committed skeptics who sat side by side. What does that picture suggest about the kind of conversation he is trying to create in this book — and what kind of conversation are you hoping to have in this study?

2.Keller argues that a "leap of doubt" is just as much a faith commitment as a "leap of faith" — that to doubt Christianity requires trusting a set of assumptions that are themselves unproven. Do you find that argument initially compelling or annoying? Why?

3.He notes that the New Atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett) were dominating bestseller lists when he wrote this book. Do you think the cultural moment has shifted since 2008, or do the same objections still carry the same emotional weight in your circles?

4.Keller says that the doubts of skeptics and the doubts of believers are, in many ways, mirror images of each other — secular people have "faith" commitments they rarely examine, and Christians have doubts they rarely voice. Which side of that mirror are you on, and how honestly have you examined your own unexamined assumptions?

5.The book is divided into two parts: dismantling objections, then building a positive case. Why do you think Keller chose to lead with the objections rather than the positive arguments? What does that rhetorical choice communicate about his respect (or lack of it) for his readers?

6.What is the one objection to Christianity — or the one unanswered question about faith — that you most hope this book will address? Write it down before you go further, so you can return to it at the end.