Keller expands on the previous section in this one. He even somewhat speaks to some of my concerns from my critique of the previous section, although I don’t think them resolved. I’ll explain why after I summarize his position.
In this section Keller takes the position from the last section, that restriction is a good thing so long as you find the correct restrictions, and argues that Christianity is the right set of restrictions. He starts by asserting that love is the right sort of restriction. He explains how love is restricting, even though people don’t think of it that way. Then he clarifies that the kind of love he is speaking of is the good, symmetrical sort, not one sided, where each party sacrifices (is restricted) for the other. Then he finally links this to Christianity by saying that the Christian God is different from all other deities in this respect, because he has changed himself for mankind, becoming a man and suffering and dieing.
In my previous post I complained that Keller just didn’t argue that Christianity was the right sort of restriction at all, and he has done so here. He has done so, however, by making a different unsupported assertion, that love is the right kind of restriction. So, I have all the same problems I had in the last post, just now about his claim about love. He has only pushed back the subject of the argument one step, a common argument technique, but not a logically effective one.
But love is nice, everyone likes love. It is much harder to argue against love as a good thing than Christianity. So lets assume Keller is right, and love is a good restrictive environment, the natural restriction to place on all humans at all times. What about the notion that a person can having a loving relationship with God.
First of all, you have to make a lot of assumptions again. You have to assume that God exists and the Christian interpretation of the biblical story of Jesus is accurate and correct, all of which have no evidence and are logically unsound. But let’s make all those assumptions. Then you are left with the claim that an omnipotent being loves a person the same way that person loves that omnipotent being. Keller says,
When you fall deeply in love, you want to please the beloved. You don’t wait for the person to ask you to do something for her. You eagerly research and learn every little thing that brings her pleasure. Then you get it for her, even if it costs you money or great inconvenience.
Well, good news! God is omniscient and omnipotent and he loves you. That means his research will be very thorough and it won’t even be inconvenient for him to do everything you want without you even asking. *sad trombone* Well, clearly that’s not what is happening.
Maybe, you’re thinking, God loves us like a mother (why is Christianity so patriarchal?) and she knows what’s good for us, better than we know ourselves. Maybe she’s created the best universe she can for us beloved humans, while still allowing us free will. But then why are there people like me, who don’t believe in her? Clearly it would help my chances at making the right decisions to get to heaven if I knew she existed, and if she loves me, she should let me know. And if she loves me, why will she torture me forever? If she loves her good Christian followers, why will she torture their unbelieving friends and family?
Keller says,
For a love relationship to be healthy there must be a mutual loss of independence. It can’t be just one way. Both sides must say to the other, “I will adjust to you. I will change for you. I’ll serve you even though it means a sacrifice for me.”
The whole notion of a loving relationship with a god is very problematic. If God is perfect, then how can God change for you, as you change for him? If he did change, he’d necessarily become not perfect, which is impossible. Also, God exists outside of time, and knows all things, so how could anything you do have any impact on him? The Jesus myth does not get around these problems, even if you believe it.
Love is generally a good thing, even though it is restrictive. It helps people get along, it helps holds human society together, and society is a good thing. But that is love between humans. Co-opting the idea of love to tenuously justify your irrationally held religious beliefs, as Keller has done, is either cynical or desperate, and is not acceptable in either case.