A break

This has been a  tough semester for me at Palomar College. I have been teaching four composition classes that have buried me under a ton of papers--final drafts, rough drafts, initial ideas, outlines, comments on essays students have read, summaries of articles they have read, . . . So, I'm taking a break here. I'll be back mid-January with more blog material to share. But for now, I hope everyone has a nice Christmas (can I say that and avoid arrest by the politically correct crowd?).

One last look at the exclusive claims of Christianity

I have been covering for the last couple of blogs a discussion in our Christian apologetics class that focused on the exclusivity claims of Christianity. Many people in our pluralistic society today object to the idea that one thing might be true while other things might be wrong. It's frustrating to deal with such mushy thinking, but that's the atmosphere in which we live today. So, here is the conclusion to the key points we covered in our class.

We discussed another picture that is sometimes used to describe a pluralistic view of religions today. This is the famous "all paths lead to God" idea in which God is at the top of the mountain and various roads go up the mountain where they converge at the top. What's wrong with this picture? It's the same problem as with the blind men and the elephant story – where is the person who is telling the story? He or she is above the mountain, looking down at all the people working their  way to the top. But only God has that view, so the person who tells the story apparently has the same viewpoint as God. That seems pretty arrogant.

As we closed the meeting, we discussed the differences between Christianity and other religions. We decided other belief systems urged their followers to chase after God through good deeds and appropriate behavior. Only Christianity says God chases after us, and there is nothing we can do to earn his favor. We agreed that we all need that special grace that God shows us. So much for the idea that Christians are arrogant.

One final thought – we Christians were not the ones who came up with the claim of exclusivity. It was Jesus himself who said this, so those who are offended by this belief need to argue with Jesus, who is generally seen as an admirable person. It makes it tougher to argue with him than argue with individual Christians.

A continuation of the exclusivity of Christianity

I am continuing my blog on things we discussed in our Christian apologetics class some time ago. The topic was Christianity as an exclusive faith. People today bristle at the idea that Christians claim Jesus is the only way to God, so we have been exploring this issue. In the past two blogs I mentioned every faith is exclusive, not just Christianity. In fact, it is disrespectful to all religions to say they teach the same thing as all the others do. The story of the blind men and the elephant does not prove pluralism when it comes to religions (that all religions are ways to God) because it assumes the narrator has special insight not granted to all the people of the world. In addition we discussed the fact that there are only three families of religion (Eastern, secularist, and Jewish/Christian/Islam), so it's not an impossible task to try to distinguish between the major religious beliefs. In this blog I want to cover a couple of more things that we discussed.

We decided that many people prefer there not to be a God for many reasons. For example, Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, one said: "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." An interesting comment here – Huxley started first with his desire that there be no God and then worked out reasons to support his desire. For him and his friends, it came down to sexual freedom and the pursuit of political power. So much for the idea that people rationally decide there is no God.

Then there's Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." Again, think about what he's saying.  He admits having a prejudice that colors his rational thoughts. Notice that it's Christians who are charged with wishful thinking when it comes to the existence of God. But the atheist is the one who wants there to be a universe with no God for them to be accountable to.

So, those who comment about our exclusive faith as if that turns them off may have key motives for dismissing all religions. If there is no special way to God, maybe there's no God at all. Then they can live however they like--no humbling of themselves, no surrender to a higher power, no submission to a superior being. 

OK, more next time on this issue of Christian exclusivity.

A second look at the exclusive claims of Christianity

Last week I discussed something our Christian apologetics group at church met to talk about – the exclusive claims of Christianity. I like to continue that here.

Of course, any time people discuss exclusive claims of religions, the famous parable of the blind men and the elephant comes up. The story involves several blind men who feel different parts of an elephant, trying to decide what sort of beast it is. One describes the trunk as a snake, another feels the tail and says the animal is a rope, while another grabs the leg and says the animal is a pillar. An observer who is cited says they are all describing the same beast, just focusing on different parts of it. The point, of course, is that all religions are actually describing the same God.

But there's something wrong with this analogy as we discovered in our class. If religious humans are the blind men, who is the sighted observer? How did this person get to this position of authority and insight? How is it that he or she can see, but the rest of us cannot? For someone to claim that all religions are the same, here she is actually being arrogant. "You may not be able to see it, but I have a privileged position that allows me to understand the big picture here."

We may feel overwhelmed in trying to look at all the different religions that exist, but it's not as difficult as it appears on the surface. There are, in fact, only three great families of religion. First, there is the Eastern view, in which God is seen as an impersonal being. Secondly, there is the secularist religion, which sees chance as ruler over all. Finally, there is the Jewish/Christian/Islam of a God who is both personal and infinite. So, these three represent the most important worldviews that religions hold. It's less overwhelming to consider these three families than to think of tackling what appears to be a dizzying array of religions.

We discussed much more in the class, but I'd like to save that for another blog. For this blog I'd like us to consider the foolishness of the blind men and the elephant parable as well as the simplified view of the three major worldviews discussed above.

Are Christians arrogant for claiming an exclusive faith?

Well, I finally finished going over Rodney Stark's important book How the West Won. Now what? For this blog I thought I would go over some of the key points that we covered in a Christian apologetics class we held last night. The discussion was about Christianity as an exclusive faith. So many people say that it is arrogant of Christians to say that Jesus is the only way to God. So here are some highlights of what we talked about.

First, this is not a problem that should be directed just to Christians. Every believer in every faith believes  they have the truth. So do atheists. That's why people believe what they believe – because they think it's correct. I'm not sure why it's only Christians who are ridiculed for this point.

Secondly, we discussed the differences between religions. People who have not thought very carefully about this assume that most religions agree on major things and just have minor differences. However, that's not true. Religions disagree about who or what God is, where people came from, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, what's important in life. These are not minor issues at all. In fact, it is disrespectful to religions to say they all teach the same doctrines. It shows the person who makes this claim has not really looked at the individual beliefs of any religion.

In addition, we decided there is a lot of laziness when it comes to discussions of religion. People who wave their hands and claim that all religions are the same so why bother to distinguish between them are mentally lazy. The truth is out there, the differences are real, and we can all explore those differences if we take the time to do so. For example, we can look at the founders of each faith to see what their lifestyle was really like – Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Buddha. Yes, this will entail some work, but if our souls are on the line, it should be worth it.

There's plenty more that we discussed, but I'll save that for the next blog.

The last blog on Stark

Well, all good things must end. This will be the last blog on How the West Won, a powerful book by Rodney Stark. He demolishes propaganda by anti-Western writers and those who dislike Christianity by showing the true history of the West. 

In his last chapter, Stark points out the good that missionaries have done as they spread the word about Christianity to the world. He says in addition to the good things I covered in the previous blog  they also undertook many aggressive actions to defend local peoples against undue exploitation by colonial officials. They became frequently involved in bitter disputes with commercial and colonial leaders in support of local populations, particularly in India and Africa.

Stark mentions a remarkable new study which has demonstrated conclusively the Protestant missionaries can take most of the credit for the rise and spread of stable democracies in the non-Western world. The study found that the more missionaries in a country in 1923, the higher the probability that by now a nation has achieved a stable democracy. How did they manage to do this? Missionaries sponsored mass education, local printing in newspapers, local voluntary organizations, including those having a nationalist and anti-colonial orientation.

In addition to all of this, missionaries contributed to the medicine and health of a region. They set up medical facilities including medical schools, dispensaries, and hospitals. They recruited and trained local doctors and nurses. One study showed that the higher the number of Protestant missionaries in a nation in 1923, the lower that nation's infant-mortality rate was in the year 2000.

Stark ends his book this way: "A substantial degree of individual freedom is inseparable from Western modernity, and this still is lacking in much of the non-Western world. No doubt Western modernity has its limitations and discontents. Still, it is far better than the known alternatives – not only, or even primarily, because of its advanced technology but because of its fundamental commitment to freedom, reason, and human dignity." I like this point. Sure, we have problems as a result of modernity, but no alternative works better. He focuses on freedom, reason, and human dignity. I would say they are under attack today by the current government which whittles away our freedoms (especially freedom of conscience), advocates the death of the unborn, and urges actions based on feelings rather than reason. We can't get rid of this administration any too soon.