Evaluating Religious Claims

A few weeks ago I gave a weeklong series (20 hours of lectures) to a group of first-year college students in Pambrun, Saskatchewan. The group was bright, interested, and not afraid to ask questions. On several occasions they even challenged some of my contentions.

Throughout the week of lectures we discussed Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Baha’i and finally Secular Humanism. Before engaging in our study of these specific religions, I gave the class a brief introduction to some philosophy and philosophy of religion. I showed them that there are certain facts that simply can’t be denied because to do so would mean utilizing the very facts in the denial process! For example, to say that absolute truth does not exist is to affirm the existence of an absolute truth, namely, that absolute truth does not exist! Likewise, the claim that truth is unknowable is a claim to know at least one “truth”, namely, that truth is unknowable.

We discussed the Law of Identity, which states that a subject is identical to itself (A=A), and the Law of Non-contradiction, which states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Again, one cannot deny either of these logical laws without employing them. Using this kind of rationalism we can evaluate truth claims, including religious ones, and check them for logical consistency. This can be a tricky thing to do. When we ask a devotee of a particular religion what they teach on the subject of origins, we may get a rational sounding answer. We may likewise get rational sounding answers when we ask these folks what they teach about life’s meaning, morals, and our future destiny. Often it’s when we put these answers together that the incoherence appears. For example, the non-theistic denial of God’s existence does not cohere with the existence of objective and prescriptive moral values. After all, who is the Prescriber if not God?

As we moved through the various religious systems I pointed out where their various doctrines violated the laws of logic, thereby disqualifying these systems from being possibly true. On the other hand, Christian doctrine did not seem to violate the laws of logic, meaning that Christianity may at least possibly be true. What both surprised and concerned me a great deal was the fact that my students, at least initially, didn’t seem to think that logical consistency was a very good test for evaluating religious truth claims. Several times during the course students challenged me by suggesting that God is “beyond logic” or “greater than our ability to reason.”

These types of comments concern me for a few reasons. To begin with, they denote a misunderstanding about what reason is and how it ought to be applied. Reason, it is alleged, is a fallen, prideful, human endeavour, completely antithetical to faith – especially faith in God. This view completely ignores the fact that reason itself is a gift from God. God gave us an intellect and expects us to use it. In fact, it’s dishonest use of our intellect that God finds inexcusable. Consider Romans 1:18-20:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

Somehow folks have gotten it into their heads that theology proper (the study of the nature of God) is somehow displeasing to the Lord. The thought here is that trying to figure out the nature of God is somehow an arrogant attempt to usurp His pre-eminence.  As I analyse the scriptures, it seems to me that the opposite is the case. God Himself declares in Jeremiah 9:24:

“But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me...”

God is seeking worshippers (John 4:23) and as we analyse the scriptures we see that a knowledge of who God is and genuine heart-felt worship are inseparable. One in fact flows out of the other. As we consider the anti-intellectualism that denies the usefulness of theological study – even repudiating it as not being God honouring – we begin to see the problem. Without an understanding of who God is and what He has done, genuine, heart-felt worship will not occur.

At this point I think it’s important to note that human reason and knowledge have their limits. We are finite creatures and as such will never be able to fully comprehend all there is to know about the infinite God of the universe. There is a subtle point however, that needs to be made here. Though we cannot know everything about God, it does not follow that all certain knowledge about God is impossible. Indeed, as we’ve just noted, God is interested in our comprehending certain theological truths.

As we consider what the Bible says about God we are indeed faced with some difficult teachings. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is especially difficult. Taking the premises that we find in the scriptures, we come to the conclusion that there exists only one God, but that this God is three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Now how can this be? How can one Being be three Persons? It seems to violate the laws of logic. Here is where we must not eject reason altogether, but to use it properly. If we analyse the doctrine of the Trinity carefully we’ll see that though it is not fully comprehendible, it still does not violate the laws of logic. This is fully congruent with how we would expect of great God. That is, being “the Truth” and the “Logos” we would expect God to be fully rational, but being infinitely greater than ourselves, we would expect that an exhaustive comprehension of God would be impossible.

In the Trinity we see God existing as One Being, but subsisting as three persons. Difficult though it may be for us to imagine, it still does not violate the logical laws like, say, the claim that God is one being who exists as three beings, or that God is three persons in one person.  Space does not permit a more thorough treatment of the Trinity doctrine (I will do that elsewhere). The point I want to make is that Christianity lends itself to rational evaluation and emerges as logically consistent.  This cannot be said for any of the other world religions, at least not as far I as I can tell. This of course does not prove Christianity true with logical necessity, but it does show the other religions false. Christianity might be true. The other religions simply cannot be true.

Again, what concerns me about the attitude of the typical North American Christian, exemplified by certain of my students, is the idea that rational evaluation of religious claims is unnecessary if not a downright waste of time. In the short run this approach may insulate Christianity from criticism of some of its more difficult doctrines (i.e. the Trinity). However such insulation is quite superfluous because as noted above, Christianity DOES emerge logically consistent under closer inspection. Furthermore, once one deems religious claims as exempt from rational evaluation, how can we possibly know which of the countless competing religious worldviews are true and which are false?  How could a Christian holding to such a view possibly demonstrate to someone that Christ is the only way, truth and life? The task would become virtually impossible.
To sum up then, here are my concerns about trying to exempt religious claims from rational evaluation:

1. It denies or ignores the fact that God has invited us to understand and know Him.
2. Claiming that Christian theology is somehow exempt from rational evaluation is a cop out. It appears as a feeble attempt to cover up systemic irrationality in our worldview, when in fact no such irrationality exists. Christianity is entirely logically consistent and enquiring folks ought to be shown that.
3. Neglecting rational evaluation of Christian theology because of its supposedly irreverent nature is itself in a way irreverent. Rational assessment of the biblical premises concerning the nature of God can and does lead one to a greater understanding of who God is and as a result, greater love and appreciation increase in the heart of God’s enquiring saint.  Without a doubt, it is when we come to an understanding of who God really is that we are compelled to fall on our face in utter adoration.
4. Deeming all religious claims as exempt from rational evaluation insulates all competing views from criticism. A Christian holding to such a position is going to find it difficult - if not downright impossible - to try and convince folks that Jesus is who He said He was: The only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.