Board index ‹ Christianity

[Glen Hunter]

I ask Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and everyone, really, the same question. I don't have any proof against any of these, so it's all about how can we know it's true? I'm just looking to have pretty chill talk about any thoughts on how to know a religion is true. Like I said, I don't have any arguments against it to share, so if you have an idea about how to know it's true, let me know!

[jimwalton]

When I look at the various cosmological, ontological, teleological, and axiological arguments for the existence of God, they make sense to me, so I firmly believe that theism makes more sense than atheism. It has more evidence in its favor, and is more logically consistent. But that's not your exact question.

Weighing and comparing the major religions of the world, there seem to be only two that really rise to the top: Christianity and Hinduism. Islam (and many others like Mormonism) is just a cult, or distortion, of Christianity. Buddhism (and others) is just a cult of Hinduism. Confucianism is really a philosophy of lifestyle, not a religion per se. When I weigh Christianity and Hinduism, Christianity seems to far outweigh Hinduism in its realistic portrayal of God, reality, evil, pain, salvation, life, and death.

The Book of Mormon has huge problems of believability in that NONE of it, not a single shred, has been corroborated by history. Anybody can say anything they want, but if it flies straight in the face of evidence, it's more than suspect to me. Another one of Mormonism's greatest weaknesses lies in the fallibility and contradictions of its prophets. They say they believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but passages from the Bible are contradicted by the revelations of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and later prophets. And new revelations can contradict and replace older revelations. In my opinion, it's not a rational belief system.

Islam? As I mentioned before, Islam is the greatest of the Christian heresies (to use a phrase from C.S. Lewis). Mohammad took Christianity and changed it, removing Jesus from deity, and putting Mohammad as its greatest prophet. But it still has Abraham, Moses, etc.

One of the things about Islam that doesn't make sense to me is the radical transcendence of Allah: the distance between man and God is impossible to cross. Repetition and submission are the rule, not any kind of a relationship. And there is no certainty of heaven for the common person. It is all "the will of God," they say. One's destiny is left at the mercy of an unknown and unknowable will. Zacharias says, "When relationship is swallowed up by rules, political power and enforcement become the means of containment." We've seen that to be true.

Islam is a religion of the Book, as opposed to Christianity, which focuses on the person of Jesus. But how does one hold that the written text is perfect (which it is not; there are textual variants)? Also, Jesus didn't come to give a certain group of people ethnic worth. That's Islam. Jesus loved the world and came to save the world.

Truth has to correspond to reality, and so at least on this fundamental level, correspondence to reality is what anyone would look for in "proving" any religion. But I'd also say, before we go on, that very little (if anything, when it comes right down to it, depending on your philosophical viewpoints) can be PROVEN. Most of the time we use adductive reasoning: inferring as wise as we can the most reasonable conclusion. In both of these areas I think Christianity has strength.

1. Though I know there are many disagreements (and I might as well draw a target on my back for saying this), YHWH is the kind of God we would expect if a God truly exists, and Jesus is the kind of person we would expect to see if God visited the planet. Their beings conform to our highest reasonings of theology and philosophy. God must be all-knowing, all-powerful (without self-contradiction), completely other (transcendent) and yet completely engaged (immanent), loving but just, judging but merciful, maintaining standards and yet full of grace, never-changing but flexible to human situations, communicative, good but can crack a whip when that is called for, eternal, creator, able to work wonders, and yet knows how to play by his own rules at the same time. This is the God we would expect to see, and this is the God we see in the Bible. As far as Jesus, we would expect compassion, power, kindness but doesn't take guff from detractors, fearless, relational, words of authority and truth, knowledge of people and situations, knowledge of the past and future, sacrificial and not self-oriented, and full of patience but not a pushover, meek but not a doormat, assertive, humble, and yet confident. This is exactly what we see. It corresponds to reality.

2. The Bible presents a world that we see. It presents a world where evil is real (as opposed to other religions like Hinduism), and where God lets things take their course but intervenes to keep his plan of redemption on track. It portrays humanity as noble but hopelessly lost, moral but corruptible, both good and evil, torn between self and others, having a conscience, knowing purpose, aware of morality, acknowledging beauty, capable of creativity, but in some ways animalistic and capable of horrific behavior. We see all these things in real life.

3. The Bible portrays "religion" not as a way to earn a place in God's graces, but as God reaching out to us, to love his way into our hearts. To me this corresponds to reality, because if we have to earn our way, we are all in hopeless trouble. But if God would just reach out to us, invite us into the kingdom, pay any sacrifices himself, and make a way for us to find him, come to him, and be redeemed, this makes sense as the only possible way someone could ever find salvation, and this is what the Bible teaches.

4. A true religion must engage the whole of the human nature, not just the mind and not just the emotions. It can't possibly just be about swaying to the music, entranced and brainless, caught up in the rhythms, spells, notions and potions. By the same token, it can't possibly just be about deep philosophy, ironing out theological conundrums, connecting intellectually with the mysteries of the universe and transcending humanity to enter the divine. True religion engages the mind and can fulfill the most intellectual queries, but at the same time enjoy expression, joy, uplifting emotions and the pull of our hearts. True religion is for the scholar and the child, the patrician and the plebeian, the civilized and the barbarian, the slave and the free, the man and the woman, the scientist and the poet. Christianity conforms to these categories.

5. A true religion must make sense out of history. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity (in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism) is a historical religion where God works in history and among history, accomplishing his purposes, involved in people's lives, bringing out the redemption of all creation.

6. A true religion must makes sense out of science. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity teaches principles of cause and effect, beauty, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, design, and a world in which science is possible.

7. Christianity teaches purpose, significance in humanity, forgiveness for wrongs, life out of death, hope for the hopeless, redemption, fairness, love, beauty, a God who is there, knowledge, conscience, renewal, and meaning. I think it addresses all of these (#s 1-7) with far greater satisfaction than other religions to such a great extent that I consider Christianity to be true.

I haven't even mentioned such things as the beauty, power, and authority of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, and the life changes that Christianity brings to so many. Such things are convincing to me, but objects of scorn to others.

I am well aware that in drawing up this list I will draw the ire and the fire of many. Obviously, if everyone agreed with me, all would be Christians. Since all people are not Christians, there is heated disagreement about the things I've said. Granted, understood, and noted. But since the question was, "How can we know it's true?", I hope I have answered the question to your satisfaction.

Does Christianity have its issues and problems? Everything does. Anything can be argued against. We have to think our way to the most reasonable conclusion.

[Glen Hunter]

Hey, thanks for explaining.

If I'm following you, you take a couple of independent steps? First, we know that some kind of God exists because of the "cosmological, ontological, teleological, and axiological arguments" you mentioned.

And then, if there is a God, the 7 reasons mentioned above show that it is the Christian God.

Is that right?

[jimwalton]

Right. The first part of my response is just to show the reasonability of theism, but that says nothing about Christianity in specific over other theistic systems (Hinduism [depending, because one can be atheistic and still be Hindu], Islam, Mormonism, etc.).

But then I explain why I believe the Christian God is true, over and against arguments against other theistic belief systems.

[Glen Hunter]

I gotcha.

Can you expand a little on one of the arguments for general theism? What's the most powerful one, in your experience?

[jimwalton]

They carry more weight cumulatively than they do individually. Ten arguments care the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but each individual argument only takes you so far.

Dr. Alvin Plantinga (philosophy, Notre Dame) offers a strong analogical argument pertaining to the existence of other minds. I will do my best to summarize his position here.

1. Each of us believes he is not alone in the universe. There are other beings who think and reason, hold beliefs, have sensations and feelings.

2. While a person can observe another's behavior and circumstances, he cannot perceive another's mental states. Thoughts and attitudes are invisible. We cannot necessarily determine by observation that another person is in pain or worried, for instance. But sometimes we can "see" pain or worry by other clues. Still, the evidence is circumstantial and surmised.

We can see Billy has red spots on his face, but we can't determine by observation that his blood contains measles. We can read a newspaper about an event, but if we weren't present, we can't determine by observation that it happened. And we can see that someone else is in pain only if the other person lets us see it.

"So I can 'determine' that a news article is true only if I 'determine' (in another sense altogether) the truth of some other proposition. So also with 'determining' that someone else is in pain. The theist, by the same principle, can 'determine' that God created the world (I see its beauty and orderliness) if I know some other proposition connecting such a world with the existence of God. I can only 'know' Jones is in pain if I know or believe some other proposition connecting what I determine with his being in pain. The question in all cases comes down to: do I know any such proposition? If so, how? What is my reason or evidence for supposing it true?"

According to the analogical position, one cannot truly determine by observation that someone else is in a particular mental state. Nevertheless, each of us has or can easily acquire evidence for such beliefs. We can construct a sound inductive argument for the conclusion that some is worried, in pain, or that an event we saw on TV actually happened.

1. I am not the only person
2. On more occasions when a person displays pain-behavior, he is in pain.
3. Jones is a person
4. On most occasions when a human being displays pain-behavior, he is in pain.
5. All human beings are persons.
6. On most occasions when a human being emits sounds that, in some language, constitute a sentence expressing a memory or perceptual judgment, that memory or perceptual judgment is true.
7. On most occasions when a person emits sounds that, in some language or other, constitutes a sentence expressing a memory or perceptual judgment, that memory or perceptual judgment is true.
8. Therefore, Jones is in pain.

Then here's where Plantinga goes with it:

Evidences ultimately fail. "Despite evidences of pain in another person, my attempt to feel a pain in them is futile. This doesn't mean they are not feeling pain, nor does it confirm they are." So for any person where there are arguments showing they are in pain, and given that there is no comparable evidence against it, those arguments must be more probably than not on the tally sheet. I can assume, by weight of evidence, argument, and beliefs (only because they are more probable than not), that other sentient beings exist and that they experience anger, joy, depression and pain, as well as beliefs about the world and metaphysics.

The theist speaks of cosmological, ontological, teleological, analogical, linguistic, and axiological evidences of God. The arguments are strong though not ultimately conclusive, but the atheist's arguments are of dubious worth at best. "Given that there are no completely provable positions, we must conclude that a man may rationally hold a contingent, corrigible belief even if there is no answer to the relevant epistemological question."

The strongest single argument (though not ultimately conclusive) is a teleological argument:

1. Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
2. The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design.

"If my belief in other minds is rational, so is my belief in God."

[Glen Hunter]

Okay, I think I get it.

The foundational idea is that a belief can be probably true, without having to be definitely true. Maybe a belief is 70% likely to be true, in which case we wouldn't know for sure if it was true, but it would be more likely true than not.

And then the teological argument suggests that the universe was designed. How can we move from "the universe was designed" to "there is a God?"

[jimwalton]

If it's reasonable to conclude that the universe is the product of an intelligent source (designed by intentional source of reason, intellect, will, and purpose), God is a more-than-reasonable alternative among the possibilities.

Think about it this way. We know that if we have nothing, we get nothing. if anything can pop into existence from nothing, then there is no such thing as science. But there IS something. Because there is something, there was a cause for what is—an eternal cause. Something must have always existed to bring into being what we now see. So there must be some eternal first cause.

Therefore it's also a timeless cause. If the past is infinite, we would have no present, so the first cause must also be timeless.

But it must also be a personal cause. Impersonal causes must have first causes. Only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause. What puts a system in motion? A personal cause.

Then there must also be a powerful cause. to bring space, time, and matter into existence requires a supreme display of power. The universe itself displays awesome power.

There must also be an intelligent cause. We have no example of informational data that doesn't come from an intelligent cause.

The conclusion is that we have an eternal, timeless, personal, powerful, intelligent first cause. Therefore, there is a God.

[Glen Hunter]

I understand the reasoning behind a first cause, and also the reasoning behind a designed universe, at least, I think I do.
Is there a reason to think that these two things are actually the same one thing?

[jimwalton]

I believe there is. What a naturalist is claiming is that the end result has characteristics that were never an element in the constituent parts. There was an impersonal beginning, but now we're personal. There was a non-intelligent beginning, but now we're intelligent. There was no reasoning even in the system, but now we can reason. There was no intentional design, but now we are able to intentionally design. There was no morality, but now there is.

Maybe you think that's possible, but what's more possible is that the source of reason is reason, purpose the source of purpose, etc. And so if there is reasoning behind a first cause and also behind a designed universe, then that reason existed "in the beginning," leading me to conclude they are actually the same one thing.