Marvin Olasky pens a great article and interview with Tim Keller, author of WORLD magazine’s Book of The Year, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (Dutton, 2008). Excerpt:
WORLD: What’s the difference between proofs of God’s existence and “clues of God”—and why is the difference important?
KELLER: I can give you enough rational reasons to believe in God that fall short of demonstrable proof but that cumulatively give me warrant to say that Christianity makes more sense than alternate views of reality.
There are enough clues of God’s existence that when you add them all up it makes more sense to believe in God than to not. That’s short of proof. And if somebody says, you haven’t proven it to me so I don’t have to believe it, they’re using a naïve rationality. The fact is, they believe all kinds of stuff they can’t prove.
Read the whole thing (need to login to access the full text).