Chapter One Remix--the Privatization of Relgion

I thought I might put up a bit more detailed analysis of Keller’s reaction to the third approach many people today take towards religion—the attempt at privatization. There are others who have pointed this tendency out (Zacharias and Guinness for example) but Keller helps in seeking to understand the thinking behind this common approach and then exposes it’s own weakness. Why do they try to make religion private? Keller begins with examples of people who say that in the public arena, discussion of moral positions should be allowed only from a secular, nonreligious grounding. He also notes that the answer for those who complain that such a position is discriminatory against religion is that such a policy is merely pragmatic—it keeps the divisive nature of religious debate out of public policy. An answer Keller offers a Stephen L Carter quote that shows that “it is impossible to leave religious views behind when we do any kind of moral reasoning at all.” He begins by asking, “What is religion?” It isn’t just belief in God (check out Zen Buddhism which is religious but doesn’t believe in God). And it isn’t just belief in the supernatural (because that doesn’t fit the Hindus). So what is religion? Here’s a working definition: “It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing.” That means that any ordered way of thinking that has opinions about anything that is moral (that ought to be done) is really religious. Keller calls it “implicit religion”. He also calls it a “worldview” or the result of a “master narrative, [which is] an account about the meaning of life along with recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.” Moral thinking is framed by religion, whether it be specific and easily recognizable, or implicit. Whether it is grand philosophy or just ‘what works’, Keller maintains that “any picture of happy human life…is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life” Those who think religion should be privatized argue that religion based beliefs are conversation stoppers, but the reality is, that just about any foundational idea of what life is about or how a person should live is basically impossible to explain and defend to those who don’t share them. “Survival of the fittest” It is here that Keller inserts an imaginary dialogue between two women about “safety nets for the poor.” Ms A and Ms B go back and forth, and can not connect, because they share different views about life and by applying those views to the discussion they pretty much can’t agree on anything. "Safety net for the poor?" "Why not let the survival of the fittest take care of things, if they make it they make it, don’t interfere." If you read the entire conversation you can see how frustrating it is, even in a non-religious setting, because foundational beliefs really affect what anyone and everyone thinks about what is right or wrong in any and every setting. The proponents of ‘privatization’ say that religion is too controversial. Others point out that “secular grounds for moral positions are just as controversial as religious grounds and that a very strong case can be made that all moral positions are at least implicitly religious.” Keller’s point—the best arguments for keeping religion out of the public arena come from a view that says religion is controversial. But in reality, any moral position is controversial (and probably religious as well). So it is impossible to privatize religion. Questions: Is Keller right in his understanding of implicit religion? Is it possible to discuss/argue moral issues free from the controversy usually laid at the feet of religion—“your ideas are based on beliefs I don’t necessarily share”--?