Can we test religions?

We hear so many people today who are relativists when it comes to religion. Now, they aren’t relativists when it comes to the rest of their lives--there is actual truth in their minds. After all, they have jobs, family, friends, and other things that they know are really there and are of a particular construct. They get paid a certain amount, they drive a particular car, they know how much is left to pay on their house mortgage.

But get them talking about religion, and all specific truths go out the window. You hear things like, “Who knows?” Or “All roads lead to God.” Or “All religions are the same.” Is this true? Is there no way to tell differences between religions for the purpose of examining which might be true? Are all religious faiths a matter of leaps in the dark, wishful thinking, and nonevidential? I don’t think so. There are ways we can test religious claims, just as we can test truth claims in science, history, or advertisements.

Here’s the first way: What’s the evidence for the particular religion in the real world? This entails examining archeology, history, science, and manuscripts. Do the claims reflect our current understanding in these areas? Let’s take Mormonism. Wow, it really fails this test in a big way. No evidence exists for the story of huge civilizations here in the Americas as their Book of Mormon proclaims. The Qur’an gets its science wrong and has manuscripts that are far removed from the time of Mohammed. How does Christianity do here? Very well, thanks. This blog won’t take the time to explore the issue, but there is plenty of evidence from each of the four areas listed above.

Here’s the second way to judge religious claims: What’s the problem of the human race and how do we solve it? All but one say we are the problem and we are the solution. We have to try harder, we have to wake up, we have to follow a list of commands, we have to pray a certain way, we have to . . . You get the idea. It’s all on us. But we’ve all tried this. We know our own weaknesses, we see our failures, we have bad self-images. Only Christianity says the solution lies outside us. God gave us a gift, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus. It’s our choice—let Him save us, or continue with the thousand attempts to reach God through our own strength.

The third way to judge religions is simple: Does it correspond to the way the world really is? For example, Hinduism says the world is an illusion (maya). But do we really believe that? If everything was an illusion, how would we know since we are part of that illusion? That doesn't make any sense to me. Then there's reincarnation, a key belief of Eastern religions and new-age thought. Where's the evidence for that? If it was true, the world should be getting better and better, and we know that's not the case. Christian Science says disease and suffering is an illusion; does that seem believable? Christianity reflects reality in so many ways – it says there is something noble about the human race, there's also something very wrong with the human race, there is such a thing as evil and suffering, etc. Science, in an echo of the Bible, reveals a world of order and design (creation as a result of God).

A fourth way to examine religious claims has to do with the leader of that movement: How is its religious leader viewed by the world? There is only one who stands out among all religious leaders thoughout history – Jesus. Why is that? I have written on the uniqueness of Jesus before, so this will be a short summary of what makes him unique – the evidence for his life and sayings, prophecies involving his life, the events of his life, what he said, what friends and enemies said about him, the positive impact he's had on the world, and the vital relationship between him and his religion. Even nonbelievers admit that Jesus was the most unique person who ever lived.

Finally, one other way to judge a religion is simple: What is the history of that religion? Let's take Jehovah's Witnesses as an example. This organization has repeatedly set specific times for the return of Jesus, only to be embarrassed when it didn't take place. In addition, it has a history of changing major beliefs over the years. The same is true of Mormonism – polygamy was okay at one time, but not now; blacks were considered inferior, but not now. Then there's Islam, which has a history of bloodshed and violence. It Islam spread through the sword. Christianity, on the other hand, said all people were equal, spread through the Roman world through peaceful means, elevated women to a much higher degree than previous religions, treated the poor and weak with respect and kindness.

So, there are ways we can look for truth among religions. Only one passes all the tests and should, therefore, be seen as more credible--Christianity.

A great read

In 2008 Timothy Keller wrote The Reason for God. It became a best-selling book, addressing reasons to believe in the Christian faith. I recently reread the book and want to share some of the author's points that make it so powerful.

He first tackles major objections to Christianity. Some have stated that there can't be just one true religion. They object to Christianity's claim of exclusivity, saying this religious view leads to wars. Is the answer to outlaw religions? Keller asks us to consider what happened when this was attempted. The result was not more peace and harmony but more oppression -- look at Soviet Russia, Communist China, and other atheistic regimes.

Many people try to water down such exclusive claims by suggesting that all major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing. They will use the story of the blind men and the elephant in which several blind men touch different parts of an elephant and give different answers of what an elephant really is. This illustration supposedly shows that all religions of the world each have a grasp of part of the truth of spiritual reality but not the entire picture. But the story is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How can the storyteller see in a world of the blind? Major religions do not teach the same thing if you take the time to examine their major beliefs.

Many believe it is arrogant to insist one religion is right. But this view itself is arrogant -- its claim is that the speaker has a better view of things than those of a religious persuasion. Of course, those who object to religious beliefs think they have a superior way to view things. Therefore, their view is also an exclusive claim about the nature of spiritual reality.

There are those who say public discourse should be secular, never religious, because religion-based positions are seen as controversial while secular reasoning is universal. However, it is impossible to leave religious views behind when we do any kind of moral reasoning at all. Religion is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about and what human beings should spend their time doing. Even the most secular individual has deep commitments about what it means to be human. Secular grounds for moral positions are no less controversial than religious grounds, and a very strong case, Keller says, can be made that all moral positions are at least implicitly religious. When you come into the public square, you cannot leave your convictions about ultimate values behind, no matter what your belief.

Keller agrees that religion can be a threat to world peace, but he says Christianity provides rich resources that can make its followers "agents for peace on earth." How? It provides a firm basis for respecting people of other faiths because Christians believe that all human beings are made in the image of God. He takes the reader back to the Greco-Roman world in which religious views seemed open and tolerant with everyone having his or her own God. However, this was a brutal culture. By contrast, early Christians, who seemed so exclusive with their claims, were remarkably welcoming to those that the culture marginalized -- different races and classes, the poor, women, the sick and dying. As Keller concludes this section, "at the very heart of their view of reality was a man who died for his enemies, praying for their forgiveness."

I would like to continue looking at The Reason for God in future blogs. If you haven't had a chance to pick up a copy of this book, you're missing a carefully reasoned argument that is a joy to read.