There’s not much to argue with in this chapter, and in fact, I thought it was wonderfully done. Here’s the rundown on it. Remember, in this section of the book, Keller is addressing common doubts about the validity of Christianity. If you find yourself wanting more of an argumentation for Christianity, that comes in the second part of the books. He’s simply unmasking, in these chapters, the unexamined beliefs many have that come to the surface in the form of doubt.
In the opening chapter, Keller addresses what he has observed as the most pervasive objection to the Christian faith, namely it exclusivity. He then very helpfully outlines the various responses to how we could deal with a religion that is so exclusive, and therefore harmful to peace on earth. One way is to simply outlaw religion. Of course there have been several massive efforts to do this (Soviet Russia, China, etc.) The result, however, from outlawing religion was not peace and harmony but an increase in oppression. Others have argued that religion would be outlawed by the very advancements in technology. In other words, religion is seen as part of the evolutionary process that we as human being will outgrow. But this has not happened at all. Keller argues that since religion is not just a temporary thing, but rather a permanent and central aspect of the human condition, simply outlawing it will not get rid of it.
Another way to get rid of religion is to condemn it. Such an effort would use education and argumentation to discredit religion and create an environment in which it is considered unenlightened and foolish to make exclusive religion claims. Keller points out, and I agree, that this approach to religion is having some effect. However, Keller goes on to brilliantly show how this effort is doomed to fail because at its heart is a fatal inconsistency and probable hypocrisy. He then goes on to state several axioms made by the adherents of such an approach to religion and shows the problem with them.
The first is, “All major religion are equally valid and basically teach the same thing.” Keller points out that the problem with this view is its inconsistency. It insists that doctrine is unimportant, yet does not take seriously that many doctrinal beliefs about the nature of God between the major religions are mutually exclusive. In other words, it ignores the importance that each religion itself places on certain things. In fact, Keller points out, the insistence that doctrine doesn’t matter, is a pretty narrow doctrine in itself, and it touted, realized or not, as superior to the other doctrines about God. In other words, the proponents of this view do the very thing that they forbid others from doing.
The second axiom is, “Each religion sees part of the spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth. Keller points out that the one making this statement assumes that the one making it sees clearly when everyone else doesn’t. In other words, how could someone possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless they themselves have the superior comprehensive knowledge of spiritual truth that they just claimed nobody else has.
The third axiom is, “Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be ‘truth’”. Using authors like Plantinga and Berger Keller points out that you an’t say, “All claims about religions are historically conditioned except the one that I am making right now.” If one insists on that, nobody can determine what is right or wrong, or what beliefs are right or wrong, since everything is culturally and historically conditioned.
The fourth axiom is, “It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it.” Again, there is an inherent contradiction here, Keller points out. The statement itself is arrogant and wrong because most people don’t hold to the view that all religions are equally valid.
Keller, in this section arguing for the condemnation of religion through education, does an excellent job of pointing out unexamined beliefs that unbelievers themselves make and inconsistencies in their own thinking. This is cleverly veiled presuppositional apologetics at it finest.
Finally, Keller points out that some people argue that religion should be kept completely private, that is, out of the public square altogether. Keller argues that such a stance is impossible if one defines religion as a “set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that humans beings should spend their time doing.” According to this definition, everything flows from a religious view. Keller points out that some call this a worldview. However, what must be noticed is that each view has a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things, and so it is impossible to keep religion private. It is impossible to leave your convictions about ultimate values behind.
In response to these was that religion could be dealt with Keller argues that Christianity can save the world because it provides a firm basis for respecting people of other faiths. Christianity holds that human beings are made in the image of God and so are valuable and even better than any of their mistaken beliefs. Christianity’s doctrine of sin also leads Christians to expect believers to be worse in practice than their beliefs should make them, and so there will be room for respectful cooperation.
Here again, is another thinly veiled aspect of presuppositional apologetics, namely, that because man is made in the image of God he knows inherently that certain things are wrong and certain things are right. Keller also masterfully shows why Christianity, rather than being a threat to the world, is actually the best asset the world has.
