Another way to judge between religions and worldviews

For the last couple of blogs, I have been discussing several ways we can judge between various religions, contrary to what relativists believe. Last time I completed the first way to judge -- the factual evidence. This time I'd like us to consider a second way to compare religions, which is to see how logically consistent each one is.

Let's start with deism, so popular back in the 1700s (think Jefferson) but still around today. This is the idea that God created everything, but he left us on our own. Its motto could be taken from Alexander Pope: "Whatever is, is right." Things are determined, no miracles happen. But let's consider some of the logical problems here. This belief system says we have no free will. The simple common sense tells us that cannot be the case--we know we make choices each day. Secondly, this system says we know certain things about God, but how is this possible if there is no revelation?

Now let's consider naturalism, the idea that there is no God, nature is everything. This system of belief makes us nothing but thinking machines. Here's the problem -- If we are only thinking machines, how can we trust our thoughts enough to believe that naturalism is true? Secondly, much like deism, this system says we have no free will. Here's another problem -- how do we get morality in such a system? In other words, how do ethics ("ought") come from "is"? Do molecules generate morality? I don't think so.

Then there's nihilism. If all is useless, why do nihilists believe their thinking and philosophy have substance and value? After all, everything is pointless except what these people tell us -- you see the contradiction there? Also, consider modern art, which often has nihilism at its core. But the artists must think this art has value and meaning, which contradicts nihilism.

What about Eastern religions? They also suffer from contradictory ideas. For example, if all is one as they teach, why do we have individual souls that get reincarnated? Practitioners refuse to follow logical rules, claiming these are just Western ideas. But logic has no cultural boundaries. Another set of problems concerns karma. Who or what works out our karma since there is no personal God overseeing everything? If we are paying off our karma, why don't we remember our past lives? It seems like we are doomed to repeat our failures under this system.

New Age beliefs share much with their Eastern counterparts, so some of the same logical concerns will be repeated. But there are other concerns too. For example, if the self is both universe and the universe-maker as New Agers claim, how can there be an occult that they get in touch with through channeling? Doesn't that suggest another world beyond their reach? If we are divine as they say, why is there human evil? How is it that an impersonal force created personal beings? If we all create our own reality, why do we all share the same reality?

Another popular belief system today falls under the general term postmodernism. Again, it has logical problems. If we make up our own reality as postmodernists claim, why did they write books? After all, nobody would understand what they were trying to communicate if their system is true. If all utterances are a power play as claimed, then that utterance is a power play and we can ignore it. If we are only the product of the blind forces of nature and society, then so is our view that we are only the product of the blind forces of nature and society, so we can ignore it. Postmodernists says we cannot trust human reason, but they prove this theory using human reason.

Let's consider Christian Science. If sickness is an illusion, why do practitioners try to heal Christian Scientists? If "man is incapable of sin, sickness, and death" (as Christian Scientists claim), why do people die? If our physical senses do not tell us the truth about the material world, how can we trust them when we read Mary Baker Eddy's book?

Let's end with a brief look at two other religions today regarding logical consistency. Mormonism gives us what they claim is an objective way to determine truth: a subjective burning in the bosom. Mormons seem to think we will all get the same result because their faith is true, but obviously this is not the case. Jehovah's Witnesses have had to deal with changes in their doctrinal positions over the years. One way they have done that is to claim that the change came from new light given to them by God. But how can new light come from God if it can change?

Of course, this was a quick tour through various religions. If you take the time to examine their key beliefs, you will see many more examples of logical inconsistencies.

But what about Christianity? Charges have been made that it too is logically inconsistent for the doctrine of the Trinity. But notice that Christians do not say we believe in three gods and one god. Instead, we say God is one being who expresses himself in three persons. This doctrine goes beyond reason but not against reason. It certainly is a mystery of the Christian faith, but it is the logical conclusion of two biblical truths -- there is one God, and there are three distinct persons who are God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Again, this is a subject that requires further examination, but look into it for yourself--you'll see that the Trinity solves problems rather than creates problems.

There is obviously much more that could be said here, so I hope you check it out for yourself. You can examine various worldviews and religions for inconsistencies in their beliefs. When you do, I hope you see the superiority of the Christian perspective.