As a follower of Christ, I frequently get challenges that stop me dead straight. I know the answer to them, but somehow I become tongue tied in the moment trying to explain things. Perhaps its fear that the person asking won’t like the answer, or perhaps its because the answer is quite complicated and will take a while to explain. The thought “where to begin?” puts peanut butter in my mouth, so to speak.
The question “What about the person who is sincerely following his own religion and trying to be the best person he can be? Will he go to hell just because he doesn’t believe in Jesus?” is one of those challenges.
I know the answer: Romans 1-3, as well as many other places in Scripture, is quite clear on what our human problem is and how Jesus solves it. I know that getting things wrong on a supposed theological quiz isn’t what condemns us; our sin does, and since everyone sins, everyone is condemned, the sincere aboriginee included. Jesus is the solution to that predicament, not the problem. If anyone sincerely seeks after God (and the Scriptures are clear that no one does unless God moves first…everyone runs from Him.), God will see to it that he hears about Christ.
The thing is that it is hard to explain succinctly to a person. Even many who identify as Christian are confused on this subject! Greg Koukl, in his most recent book Tactics, shares a conversation in which he beautifully answers that challenge in a sensible way:
Shannon (who described herself as a Christian “with a strong relationship with the Lord.”): What about someone who believes in God? What about the person who is sincerely following his own religion and trying to be the best person he can be?
Koukl: Why should anyone become a Christian in the first place? You and I are Christians. What benefit does putting our trust in Jesus give us?
S: Jesus saves us
K: From what?
S: He saves us from our sins.
K: Right. You might say we have a spiritual disease called sin, and Jesus did something on the cross that healed the disease. Can simply believing in God heal that disease?
S: No
K: Can trying our best to be a good person heal it, or being really religious, or even being completely sincere? Can any of those things forgive our sin?
S: (shakes head)
K: None of these things in themselves can take away our guilt. We’d still be dying from our spiritual disease, wouldn’t we?
S: (agrees)
K: If religion, or sincerity, or ‘doing our best’ cannot save you and me, then how can any of those things save someone else? Either Jesus rescues us by taking the punishment for our sin on himself, or we are not save and we have to pay for our own crimes. It’s no more complicated than that.
Notice two things: For one, Koukl gave Shannon no new information. He merely recalled for her things she already knew, but she just hadn’t connected the dots, so to speak. Secondly, he accomplished that primarily by using questions.
I learned a lot about how to handle that question from this one exchange in his book. Hopefully you can glean something from it too.
Good points. That book rocks, by the way. I need to blog on it. Everyone should read it.
There’s more than one way to connect dots. From my vantage point, ANY belief system that mandates everyone has to believe in the same way is a false belief system. It’s absolutely bonkers.
RT,
Seems like your belief system (pluralism) mandates that everyone must believe like you that there’s more than one way to connect the dots. In other words, if they aren’t pluralists, they’re wrong. Your own belief system is absolutely bonkers, by your own criteria.
Actually, it has nothing to do with belief at all. Look around you. Are all flowers the same? Do all birds sing the same song? Is every tree or mountain the same size? Of course, the answer is no in each case. Everything follows its own path.
RT,
Your first comment amounted to a belief, no matter which way you spin it. Your belief was that “there’s more than one way to connect the dots, and that any belief system that mandates everyone has to believe the same is a false belief system.” Basically, I take it that you were saying that any exclusive belief system, any system that says it is right and others are wrong, is false.
Never mind for the moment that you attacked a slight strawman (I never *mandated* anything. You are free to believe what you want.). Your pluralism might sound good, but realize you sawed off the branch you are sitting on: you yourself were saying that my beliefs are false, which is the very thing you criticized me for.
No, my first statement is a fact, one borne of simple observation. As far as the state of human-based knowledge goes, I can prove my thesis.
On the contrary, any person or institution that posits there is only one path or manner in which to connect dots cannot prove it. Thus, that is solely a belief.
Also, I didn’t attack anyone. I made a declarative statement. I didn’t direct my statement at you personally nor did I call anyone names nor did I say you or anyone else was full of dung.
A person can disagree with another and yet not attack them. I mean, really, if you consider a simple declarative statement to be an attack, then I guess the only people you feel comfortable conversing with are those who agree with you 100%.
You seem to be turning a deaf ear to what Rich is saying.
You stated, “ANY belief system that mandates everyone has to believe in the same way is a false belief system.”
Rich believes that there is only ONE way to God.
You believe there are MANY ways to God.
Any way you look at it, both belief systems break your initial statement.
There may be different varieties of roses, but a rose is still a rose.
There is no proof of one God or lots of Gods. Thus, there is no indication that there is one or many ways to something that does not exist. It would be like debating how to ride a unicorn or the best way to find the pot ‘o gold at the end of the rainbow.
Neil and Jeff,
Good to see you guys. Thanks for chiming in.
RT,
You’ve made several remarks since my last comment, so let me take each in turn.
First, back to something I neglected to comment on. Your analogy between beliefs and mountains, etc is stretch. First, an analogy is just that: an analogy. It is not an argument. To actually make your claim stick, you need to give an argument, not a mere analogy.
Second, the analogy doesn’t follow. Mountains et al are physical objects; beliefs are immaterial statements about reality. They might be true or false statements, but they are about reality nonetheless. You are trying to connect two totally different things. What’s worse, all you do is make a blanket statement that the two are relevantly alike; you don’t even explain or give evidence for any supposed connection between the two.
“No, my first statement is a fact, one borne of simple observation. ”
How so? Just stating it is a fact doesn’t make it so. To review, you said: “ANY belief system that mandates everyone has to believe in the same way is a false belief system. It’s absolutely bonkers.” I don’t see how this is a fact. You need to do more than make another blanket statement (“its a fact”) to cover the first blanket statement.
“On the contrary, any person or institution that posits there is only one path or manner in which to connect dots cannot prove it. Thus, that is solely a belief.”
Now you are changing the subject–from the nature of truth to proof. In my responses to you, my point has been that you are contradicting yourself. It’s as simple as writing “I cannot write a word of English” in English or claiming you have a square circle. You stated in your first comment that any belief that “mandates” everyone must believe in the same way is wrong. That is a belief itself…you believe it (you think its true), right? Well, anyone who doesn’t believe that is wrong, according to you. Anyone who doesn’t believe there are many ways to God you “mandate” as wrong. But this is exactly what you say is “bonkers.” You are hoisting yourself upon your own petard…the only proof I need is to point it out.
What is the difference between “proof” and “belief”? Please explain yourself more.
“Also, I didn’t attack anyone. I made a declarative statement. I didn’t direct my statement at you personally nor did I call anyone names nor did I say you or anyone else was full of dung.”
I didn’t assume you were attacking me personally, but you did attack my beliefs. Anytime you open your mouth to disagree with someone or critique their views, you attack their views. I’m fine with that, by the way; I do that all the time, and I’ve done it to your beliefs in my comments. You and I can’t avoid it, really: it’s the nature of the beast.
Actually, to be more accurate, you didn’t attack my beliefs: you attacked a strawman version of them. A strawman is an informal logical fallacy wherein someone critiques a weak version of someone’s beliefs, instead of critiquing the real deal. In your comments, you critiqued a strawman b.c you said I was “mandating” that everyone believe as I do, as if I was “forcing” someone to believe. How is making statements about Christ, sin, and human beings “mandating” anything?
I’m not mandating anything–people are free to believe what they want. Being right, however, is a totally different story.
“There is no proof of one God or lots of Gods.
Thus, there is no indication that there is one or many ways to something that does not exist.”
You are changing the subject again, from a logical point about beliefs that I was making (something can’t be both true and false at the same time) to a question of evidence and proof.
Either:
There is one way to God
or
There is more than one way to God
Regardless of the evidence or lack thereof for either, both can’t be true at the same time and in the same way.
Also, why do you say “there is no proof of one God or lots of Gods.” Have you examined all the arguments for God’s existence? If so, why do you find those arguments lacking? Please explain the arguments you’ve heard, and critique them for me. What would count as proof? How is God and unicorns relevantly alike? The statement “there is no proof of one God…” is pretty bold. You need to at least answer that last question before making the “there is no proof” statement sensible. As it stands, your last paragraph is just another blanket statement.
Correction: I misspoke, RT. I shouldn’t have put it as being between one way/ many ways to God. A more accurate way to put the above is:
either
many *beliefs* are right
or
one *belief* is right
In your case, you are trying to have it both ways. On the surface, you affirm the first statement, but at second glance, you also affirm the second statement, because you state that one belief, pluralism, is right, whereas my belief, exclusivism, is wrong. You think you’ve got it right…I have no beef with that, except when I think I’m right, you call foul. Consistency is all I ask.
Gee, you’ve asked for a lot. I’ll think on it awhile. Right now, I’m going to go take a nap and listen to the rain.
Rich, thanks for the post. It was really good to read it and if I ever have a chance to speak to a person who has the same kind of questions, I’d be able to respond to them.
Also, the debate/discussion (whatever you want to call it) between you and RT has been interesting to read. However, RT’s exit was so convenient – I wonder if he’ll be back…
Jules seems to have trust issues. I said I would return after my nap and I here I am.
As to mountains versus beliefs, are you so certain one is an object and the other is not? Both may be as real as the other and both may simply be illusions.
The difference between proof and belief. First, in the overall scheme of things, everything is a belief — religion, science, philosophy, self-awareness, etc. However, as far as you human knowledge goes, proof is something that can be replicated by others, while belief is wholly subjective.
For example, I can touch a tree and so can you. So, together, we have proven the thing is there (though we might disagree that it’s a tree or what kind of tree it is).
If you conjure up an image in your head, I can’t conjure up the exact same thing because I can’t see inside your mind. Beliefs are images.
So, the proof that there are many ways is, as I stated previously, all around us. Flowers, dogs, mountains and raindrops don’t have to accept Jesus as savior nor go to church nor make tithes and offerings, yet they are each part of (from your perspective) God’s kingdom. Also, because they don’t sin, there’s nothing they need to be saved from. This indicates that other beings necessarily follow a different path than humans.
Have you ever seen a unicorn? Is there any documentation that a unicorn ever walked on the earth? There are certainly folk tales and fables that indicate that unicorns are real, but there’s no proof.
Same applies to your God. No one has ever seen him and there’s no verifiable evidence to suggest his existence. All we have is a grand folk tale (the Bible), but that doesn’t meet the burden of proof any more than any other fable.
Sorry, I should have proofed my last response a little better. There are a few orphaned or misplaced words in it.
Hi RT,
Thank you for returning!
As to your latest comments:
“As to mountains versus beliefs, are you so certain one is an object and the other is not? Both may be as real as the other and both may simply be illusions.”
What do you mean by that? You can say “may” about anything you want, but that doesn’t give me reason to think you are saying something true.
“However, as far as you human knowledge goes, proof is something that can be replicated by others, while belief is wholly subjective.”
Are you equating things that can be proved with what can be shown by the scientific method (or accessed by the five senses)? If so, what sense (taste, touch, sight, etc) or what scientific experiment are you using to “prove” your statement above?
“If you conjure up an image in your head, I can’t conjure up the exact same thing because I can’t see inside your mind. Beliefs are images.”
So let me see if I am hearing you right. You hold that beliefs are a) subjective and b) images. Yes?
You believe everything you’ve written so far, right? I don’t see how you could not believe them. Seems like, again by your own admission, your own beliefs (about pluralism, many ways to God, beliefs, proof, your critique of my views, etc) are subjective images apart from proof.
“So, the proof that there are many ways is, as I stated previously, all around us. Flowers, dogs, mountains and raindrops don’t have to accept Jesus as savior nor go to church nor make tithes and offerings, yet they are each part of (from your perspective) God’s kingdom. Also, because they don’t sin, there’s nothing they need to be saved from. This indicates that other beings necessarily follow a different path than humans.”
What is your bottom line argument here? I’m gonna try to say it correctly. Let me know if I’m still missing something.
1) Flowers, dogs, mountains, and other physical objects do not have to accept Jesus.
2) Flowers et al have not sinned.
3) Flowers et al don’t need a savior.
4) Flowers et al are “other beings.”
5) Flowers et al “follow a different path” from humans.
First: what do you mean by 4 and 5? In order for something to “follow a path,” it must have a will. Seems kinda strange to hold that flowers and mountains have a will.
Second: what do you suppose to conclude from 1-5? That is, what follows? Does it follow that there are many ways to God or that many beliefs are right or that all religions (“paths” in your parlance) are true? I don’t see how you could say that 1-5 leads to any of those.
“Have you ever seen a unicorn? Is there any documentation that a unicorn ever walked on the earth? There are certainly folk tales and fables that indicate that unicorns are real, but there’s no proof.
Same applies to your God. No one has ever seen him and there’s no verifiable evidence to suggest his existence. All we have is a grand folk tale (the Bible), but that doesn’t meet the burden of proof any more than any other fable.”
Again, you are just conjuring up a connection without actually connecting (arguing) anything. Why should I think that unicorns and God are both like that? Have you read the Bible through? Why say that it is grand fairy tales? Are you suggesting that if we don’t see something, that therefore we don’t have evidence of its existence? That would surprise many scientists, who reason from what they *can* see to what they *can’t* see (ie, effect to cause reasoning…forensic scientists, for example, do this all the time). At any rate, why think that “physical proof” is all the proof there is? What about arguments from history or philosophy?
Lastly, seems like you’ve read through and deeply considered all the arguments for God’s existence (since you make the very bold statement that “no one has ever seen him and there’s no verifiable evidence for his existence.”). I ask the same question I asked earlier: which arguments have you deeply considered, and where do you find them flawed? Many, many writers throughout the centuries, from philosophers, to historians, to scientists, have written books on evidences and arguments for God’s existence. Which ones have you read, and why do you find them lacking?
RT, I realize these are a lot of questions, and I really don’t blame you if you don’t want to answer them all in detail. I lay them out to make a simple point: you keep tossing out blanket statements, but you don’t really back them up…you’ve got lots of ‘splainin to do.
And while I’m at it, let me reiterate my argument about your initial claims. Either:
you and I are both correct (i.e pluralism is true…there are “many ways to believe” and they are all correct)
or
you are correct and I’m incorrect.
If the former, then I’m correct, which means that pluralism is false (it is not true that there are many ways to believe), there’s only one way to God (since that’s what I believe). If the latter, then its false that there are many ways to believe, since my “way” is wrong. Your view, in other words, commits suicide: either way, it is false that there are many ways to believe.
“What do you mean by that? You can say “may” about anything you want, but that doesn’t give me reason to think you are saying something true.”
I say “may” because we simply don’t know. We can describe life, but we don’t know what it is. We can describe love and how love manifests itself in our lives, but we can’t pinpoint precisely what it is.
“Are you equating things that can be proved with what can be shown by the scientific method (or accessed by the five senses)? If so, what sense (taste, touch, sight, etc) or what scientific experiment are you using to “prove” your statement above?”
Which statement are you referring to?
“So let me see if I am hearing you right. You hold that beliefs are a) subjective and b) images. Yes?”
Yes.
“You believe everything you’ve written so far, right? I don’t see how you could not believe them. Seems like, again by your own admission, your own beliefs (about pluralism, many ways to God, beliefs, proof, your critique of my views, etc) are subjective images apart from proof.”
Not necessarily. Any person can advance an idea, formulation or concept that they may or may not agree with.
While I will grant the second part of your statement, if you’re going to advance the idea that facts, observable reality and proof are beliefs, then everything is a belief.
“What is your bottom line argument here? I’m gonna try to say it correctly. Let me know if I’m still missing something.
1) Flowers, dogs, mountains, and other physical objects do not have to accept Jesus.
2) Flowers et al have not sinned.
3) Flowers et al don’t need a savior.
4) Flowers et al are “other beings.”
5) Flowers et al “follow a different path” from humans.”
So far, so good. However, I’m simply using flowers as an example. This same scheme can apply across the spectrum.
“First: what do you mean by 4 and 5? In order for something to “follow a path,” it must have a will. Seems kinda strange to hold that flowers and mountains have a will.”
By #4, I mean that flowers aren’t humans.
Have you ever talked to a flower in flower language? If not, how do you know that flowers don’t possess consciousness nor will. Humans believe that other entities don’t possess either — that we’re extra-special in this area — but this belief is based on what? Just because we don’t understand the life of flowers, slugs or sparrows doesn’t mean we don’t share some elements in common. If, as you believe, God created all, then a part of God is in all things.
“Second: what do you suppose to conclude from 1-5? That is, what follows? Does it follow that there are many ways to God or that many beliefs are right or that all religions (“paths” in your parlance) are true? I don’t see how you could say that 1-5 leads to any of those.”
Just as there are countless varieties of flowers, there are countless varieties of humans. One could argue that this infinite variety points to the idea that each being must follow its own path.
And let’s get one thing straight. I have never argued that there are many paths to God. I don’t believe in God.
“Again, you are just conjuring up a connection without actually connecting (arguing) anything. Why should I think that unicorns and God are both like that?”
Because there is no documented evidence of the existence of either.
“Have you read the Bible through?”
Unfortunately, yes. In fact, more than once.
“Why say that it is grand fairy tales?”
Because the text is rife with inconsistencies, contradictions and incorrect inferences.
“Are you suggesting that if we don’t see something, that therefore we don’t have evidence of its existence? That would surprise many scientists, who reason from what they *can* see to what they *can’t* see (ie, effect to cause reasoning…forensic scientists, for example, do this all the time). At any rate, why think that “physical proof” is all the proof there is? What about arguments from history or philosophy?”
Things that we can’t “see” are often worked out via mathematical computation. I know of no such computation that proves the existence of God.
“Lastly, seems like you’ve read through and deeply considered all the arguments for God’s existence (since you make the very bold statement that “no one has ever seen him and there’s no verifiable evidence for his existence.”). ”
Actually, I got that notion from your own sacred text. Hey, even Moses who supposedly had a one-on-one parley with the almighty, couldn’t look at him directly and instead only saw a burning bush.
“I ask the same question I asked earlier: which arguments have you deeply considered, and where do you find them flawed? Many, many writers throughout the centuries, from philosophers, to historians, to scientists, have written books on evidences and arguments for God’s existence. Which ones have you read, and why do you find them lacking?”
I’m not going to answer this particular question simply because it would take tomes to do so. Go read my blog and you’ll see a whole bunch of my objections.
Hopefully, there aren’t too many typos here.
Pingback: No Proof that there’s no Proof « The Pugnacious Irishman
RT, it’s not so much a trust issue but rather what people usually do in a discussion. Many times I’ve had discussions with people who end the discussion by saying “I’ll get back to you on that” and they never do. So I was just sincerely wondering if you were coming back. And hey, I guess you did! Good on you.
Jules,
I apologize for being a bit snippy with you. It was uncalled for. I certainly agree with you that the line I used is indeed a common dodge. It wasn’t meant in that way by me, but there was no way that you could know that.
No worries. I must say that you’re perhaps one of the most polite people whose comments I’ve ever read online. The snippiness is no big deal.
The discourse between you and Rich had been quite interesting to read. But yeah, like I said, it gets kinda annoying when people just use a dodge technique like that. Glad you’re not one of those people.
Jules,
To be fair & honest, I have not always been so polite. I can dish it out with the best of them, though I rarely use vulgarities. However, as I age and try better to incorporate Taoist philosophy into mind life, I’ve come to learn that a person can be firm in their beliefs without feeling the need to attack others.
At the end of the day — regardless of which belief system, if any, a person chooses — there’s far more of what we don’t know as opposed to what we think we know.