Final ways to judge between religions and worldviews

In previous blogs I have discussed a couple of ways a person can judge religions to see which one would be the best. The first way was to look at the factual evidence (manuscripts, history, archaeology, anthropology, founders of each religion). The second way was to examine each set of beliefs for logical inconsistencies. For this blog I would like to examine a final two areas -- religions as they deal with ethics/human nature and the satisfaction they can bring.

Some religions are simply weaker when it comes to ethics and human nature. Think about Eastern religions with their focus on karma compared to Christianity. Under the concept of karma, a person suffers because of past-life sins, so he/she must work out and pay for these moral shortcomings. If you see somebody suffering, just keep going and don't interfere with his/her karma. Christianity, on the other hand, from its very beginning was focused on helping the poor, the needy, the sufferers. The Roman world was amazed and impressed at how early Christians took care of those unwanted by their society. I don't think there is any doubt that the Christian system is superior here in its care for other humans.

Christianity strikes me as the best religion when it comes to understanding human nature. For example, it is the only religion that understands the weaknesses of humanity. Why do I say that? Christianity is the only one not based on works. All others tell their adherents to complete task after task, which leads to frustration and feelings of guilt or inadequacy. None of us can live up to the standards and requirements other religions burden us with. In addition, it's only Christianity that says humans are a mixture of good and evil. This belief explains the wonderful things we can do as well as the horrific deeds that we can inflict on each other. It explains our low self-esteem since we are honest with ourselves and know our shortcomings, no matter what sort of face we put on for the rest of the world. It also explains why we feel guilty.

Christianity is also superior for the way it deals with morality. Unlike other religions and cults, Christianity says morality is from God. Standards of right/wrong are outside us rather than made up by us as we go along. This is far more satisfying and saves us from the trap of relativism in which each person generates his/her own set of principles, a recipe for anarchy, frustration, and social upheaval.

Finally, a fourth way to judge religions has to do with subjective satisfaction. For example, we can live the Christian life -- we eliminate guilt and the sense of frustration when we fall short of ethical and moral standards. Compare this to other religions -- we can't live Christian Science (we know death is real), Scientology (it's a fantasy based on money), Eastern religions (all is maya, an illusion??), Mormonism (no factual basis). In addition, Christianity provides a sense of awe. Consider some of its claims -- God is a three-personed being, He created all out of nothing, He came to earth for us, He rose from the dead, He cares about each one of us. Christianity also satisfies in the things it declares to be real -- miracles, resurrection, prayer, existence of the soul. It explains many things--pleasures that never totally satisfy, our refusal to be amoral, and our longings for truth and beauty.

One other thing about Christianity that is satisfying is how it unites the two-story house modern man lives in. There is a lower story in which humans are told the only thing that counts is science and facts. So here dwells the idea of people as machines/products of mindless evolution. This level says there is no point to life. So we can't really live there. Instead, people escape to a second story where meaning, freedom, values, ethics, and wishes exist. People who have ignored Christianity have been trying to live in this schizophrenic way. But the Christian faith says we can have it all and integrate both stories due to the existence of a God who cared enough to come into our world and save us from ourselves.

So when someone says we can't judge between religions, let him/her know there are several ways--how the religions correspond to reality, whether they are logically consistent, what they say about ethics and human nature, and whether they are satisfying to us in deep ways. I never wanted to be part of a religion because it "resonated" with me. I wanted to follow a religion that was true.

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.