We Must Test Any Religion or Worldview’s Claims to Truth

In a previous post I argued that it is much easier to believe in Christianity than the alternatives, and discussed three ways we can judge a religion or worldview’s claim to truth. I argued that absolute certainty is impossible, so our goal should be beyond-a-reasonable-doubt certainty. The three ways (apologetics methods) bring us well beyond reasonable doubt for Christianity, and help us to compare it to the alternatives. Here are some examples of how these methods help us do that.

1. Evidentialism. I heard historian Paul Maier say in a lecture, “We have, in terms of the credibility of the Christian faith, more positive correlating evidence than any other faith on the face of the earth.” He adds that if we checked out other religions’ holy books and secular correlations (things outside of the books themselves that relate to the books), we’ll find that no other religion can do what Christianity can do. We assume in our ignorance that all of the world’s religions have a similar historical basis to Christianity, but they do not. Maier says it isn’t even close. I can’t do justice to the mountain of evidence in such a short space (libraries of books do!), but here are a few things to consider.

• What sets Christianity apart from every other religion is its holy book, the Bible. The veracity of Christianity rests on the history recorded in that book. If it happened the way it says it did, it is true, if it didn’t, it is not. It’s that simple. And the Bible isn’t really one book. It is 66 different books written by 40 authors in three languages over 1,500 years. Despite all this variety, it conveys one coherent message from beginning to end, the history of redemption, God’s plan of saving his people from their sin. No other religious holy book reads anything like it, nor do any of them depend on one man actually dying on a Roman cross, and coming back to life again. None, save Islam, make the claim of being the exclusive truth about the nature of reality, which is why all of them find room in their systems for Jesus, but Jesus for none of theirs. There are many ways to validate the historical claims in the Bible, all of them available for anyone who puts in a bit of effort, and it’s easier than ever before.
• If the Bible is historically accurate, it is the Word of God, if it isn’t then it has to be the product of human imagination. I always ask myself as I’m reading it, is this made up? If it isn’t what it claims to be, then it is made up. It doesn’t read made up, and the deeper you get into it, the less made up it appears. One reason is human psychology. If you read the Bible carefully, you’ll notice that God is continually doing things people don’t expect. Quite the contrary, he’s doing things people would never expect, or make up, in their historical/cultural context. One of the best examples is Jesus as the Messiah. First century Jews would never, ever have been able to make him up. Reading the gospels it is clear most everything he says and does confounds not only his enemies, but his closest followers. It’s striking how much he confuses everybody! And he died a shameful, bloody death on a Roman cross. Jewish Messiah’s don’t do that!

2. Classical apologetics begins by first employing various theistic arguments to establish the existence of God. If, they posit, you prove God’s existence logically, then you establish the basis for the miraculous. From there you establish the evidence that sets Christianity apart from other theistic religions. This of course eliminates not only atheism, but any form of pantheism. Once you establish this, then it’s on to the evidence.

3. Presuppositionalism insists that we must start by presupposing the truth of Christianity and the authority of the Bible to make sense of anything. This is known as circular reasoning, and thus not popular in apologetics circles. But the main claim of presuppositionalists is undoubtedly true: if Christianity is not true, nothing is. Only on Christian assumptions does anything ultimately make sense. When we challenge other religious presuppositions, including atheism, we find they don’t hold up. The point is to push each worldview to the logical conclusion of its faulty assumptions, and it is brilliantly effective.

I say all this not to make a persuasive case for Christianity, which is easily done, but to help Christians realize the burden of proof isn’t just ours. If we’re expected to believe in some alternative to Christianity, then it better be able to carry the load of its own defense. When you study the alternatives, you may be amazed at just how weak they really are.