“Christians are arrogant when they state that there is just one way to God. No one can know final truth.”

I would grant that no one can know truth exhaustively or with 100%, incontrovertible certainty. However, there is a truth to be known sufficiently. Some would repeat Bertrand Russell's protest that God has not provided sufficient evidence of His presence and His will. However, those who object this way are often vague about the type of evidence they would accept. If such evidence as they demand were forthcoming, how would they then respond? Would such a skeptic even admit the possibility of a final truth? Or are we simply faced with an endless quest, an endless mystery? Some who make the charge of arrogance may be lazy agnostics who have no motivation to seek the truth and also make casual assumptions without having taken the time to actually examine the Christian truth claim.

Secular Views of Christian Faith

Often those accusing Christians of arrogance for daring to make an exclusive truth claim, maintain that religion is non-rational, subjective, completely relative, and free of logical analysis. Religious faith is seen as anthropology---a product of the human imagination, or a human attempt to make sense of the world. The historic faiths are simply outmoded forms of consciousness. Therefore, making an exclusive truth claim is seen as rude and in bad taste.

Relativists and secularists dismiss all religious truth claims except their own. (A person who affirms that “all truth is relative,” is making a truth claim she believes everyone should adopt and live by. Such a claim is self-refuting and incapable of proof. Furthermore, the new atheists see their position as true and write books and give lectures in an effort to refute theism and to persuade people to abandon religious faith.

Another group of people who are a little more kindly disposed towards religious traditions, and believe that there are “many paths to God”, will often use the analogy of the “blind men and the elephant”. One blind man feels the elephant’s trunk and states that the elephant is a long, slender, and flexible creature, while another feels the elephant’s leg and claims the elephant is like a tree trunk. The blind men are partly right, but don’t see the “whole elephant”. As pastor and apologist, Tim Keller points out, the person using this analogy is really claiming to see the “whole elephant”, to know the final truth that eludes all the adherents of the religions.¹

Opposing Truth Claims and the Law of Non-contradiction

While there is no incontrovertible foundation for any worldview being advocated today, that does not mean that logic and evidence cannot be used to evaluate religious truth claims. It should be pointed out that Christianity is not the only faith that makes an exclusive truth claim. Other faiths also make exclusive claims. For example, Islam regards the prophet Mohammed as the final prophet superseding the Jewish prophets and Christ. Those who do not acknowledge Mohammed as the prophet of God will face the judgment of God and will not enter paradise. They believe that Christ never claimed to be God, but was a great prophet. Nor was Christ crucified, but was taken up into heaven. This flatly contradicts the centrality of the death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection from the dead, which are central to Christian faith. According to Islam, Christians are guilty of the sin of “shirk”---associating a human being with God. Since the adherents of both faiths view their beliefs as objectively true, the laws of logic apply in evaluating them. Both Christian and Muslim truth claims may be false, but they cannot both be true at the same time, because that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

Evidence-Based Faith vs Fideism

Judaism and Christianity are unique among world religions, because they are based on historical events and the testimony of a large and varied collection of individuals over time. This is especially true of Christian claims about Jesus. (See The Reliability of the Gospels and Did Jesus Actually Rise From the Dead?) Many other religions are non-historical and are based on the teachings or revelations received by a single person. For example, Islam rests on the Muhammed’s claim to have received the revelations dictated by the angel Gabriel that make up the suras of the Quran. Because this occurred to Muhammed alone, there is no outside evidence that can corroborate or validate his claim. Islam is, in the final analysis, a fideism (faith apart from corroborating evidence). Buddhism is the teaching of Guatama Buddha, a sage and philosopher who lived sometime around 600 to 400 BC. His teaching is an intuitive philosophy based on traditional Eastern beliefs like reincarnation and the law of karma. He did not claim to receive any revelation from God or the gods, in fact he could be considered an atheist.

As for the charge of arrogance, the very nature of the Christian gospel is antithetical to any notion of pride or sense of superiority. We come to God as wretched sinners seeking mercy and forgiveness. In the words of the old revival hymn,

“Just as I am, without one plea
But that Thy blood was shed for me . . .”

_______________________

Footnotes

¹Keller, Timothy, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, Riverhead Books, 2008, p. 212.

Back to Articles Page