christ-on-a-stick

(*Note for definition purposes: By “exclusivist” Christian I mean those who believe that belief in God and J.C. as his son/died on the cross for our redemption/etc. etc. is THE ONLY way to “salvation”, without which unbelievers will experience some sort of consequence in the afterlife (whether a literal fiery hell or more nebulously defined “separation from God”.)

One of the biggest things that has always bothered me about every exclusivist Christian I have ever met or encountered is the “unexamined” nature of their beliefs; the fact that they have not chosen their belief system based on critical examination of all the exclusivist, truth-claiming religions and come to a rationally defensible decision that Christianity is the “true” religion. My definition of “rationally defensible” would include NOT appealing to “personal revelation”, as it is not demonstrable, and beginning without employing presuppositionalism.

I have met thousands of Christians throughout my life and personally known hundreds, and can honestly say that I have never met one who did the following:

1) Started with a “clean slate” re: presuppositions; made an intellectual resolution to * reserve ANY judgement * on the veracity of one truth-claim over another until researching each of them equally.

2) Done an exhaustive study of each of the exclusivist truth-claiming religions, comparing the claims and * applying the same standard for credibility to each *.

3) Made a determination based on the conclusions of #2 as to which religion was most credible, again using the exact same standard for each.

If I had ever encountered a Christian who had honestly done this (and could demonstrate their criteria and conclusions, etc., not just CLAIM they did it), I would have a lot more respect for their belief (not to be confused with respect for them as a person.) It is simply impossible for me to respect * beliefs* that are wholly unreflective, unexamined and usually either arrived at by virtue of “inheritance” or a purported “search” in which presuppositionalism was employed (deciding on the religion and then looking for evidence to back it up).

…which leads me to my “Fantasy Challenge”! If I won the Lottery, (a sizable pot anyway ), I would try to find a way to offer a large cash prize (let’s say $500,000) to any exclusivist Christian who believed they could do the above over the course of a year, document it, and demonstrate that Christianity is the rationally defensible “winner”.

Do you think I would get any takers?

I think that the biggest problem from the get-go would be arguing with would-be challengers over the definitions, criteria, legitimate sources, etc… which would obviously need to be laid out from the beginning.

Do you think there are any theologians/apologists out there who would take such a challenge and agree to objective definitions, criteria etc. and disallow appeals to unfalsifiable claims (personal revelation, etc.)?

Obviously this is just something of a hypothetical scenario for me to ruminate on, since I don’t think I’ll be winning the Lottery anytime soon (not playing throws a monkey wrench into that whole idea). However, I am curious as to whether any of the theists here think that they know people (or have heard of, i.e. apologists etc.) who would confidently take such a challenge.

Also, it seems to me that if anyone had done this, or was willing to do it (even just for themselves) and was able to come up what they believed to be convincing documentation, it would make a great book and be a big “win” for evangelism… which makes me wonder why no one has, unless in the end no theist really believes it is possible.

Thoughts?

Jinto

Do you have any idea how many exclusivist, truth-claiming religions there are?

Well, neither do I, but I'm sure it's a big enough number to render the task you've just given infeasable.

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Jinto...

With all due respect, I disagree.

Off the top of my head, I can come up with:

Judaism
Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism being subsets thereof)
Islam
Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon)
...??? (I'm probably missing something, brain be fried...)

AFAIK, Buddhism/Taoism/Hinduism etc. as well as the "smaller" religions such as Wicca, Santeria, etc., are not "exclusivist" in the sense of making absolute-truth claims that promise penalty in the afterlife for nonbelief.

Given the numbers of years that many Christians devote to "studying" and immersing themselves in their faith, I think it is entirely feasible. The question is, would anyone do it?

Jinto

Ah... perhaps you're right.

Technically, I'm not sure Judaism would qualify as an exclusivist religon either. After all, it's only belief-related claims are that you shall be put to death for worshipping a different God, or an idol. I don't think there is anything in the OT about being punished for not believing, or any claims that you will be saved by faith.

seebs

And, most importantly, *THESE STANDARDS ARE ONLY APPLIED TO JEWS*. Gentiles are allowed to exist. They are not God's people; they are not answerable to His rules.

ManM

christ-on-a-stick,
Don't forget that there are thousands of sects within Christianity itself. Would you require documentation that compares each individual denomination, or are you lumping all protestants together?

christ-on-a-stick

Hi ManM,

I am indeed aware of the multitudes of sects/denominations within Christianity (and there are some variations within Catholicism as well) - so I would be most interested in focusing on the most basic common beliefs of exclusivist Christianity (Interventionist God, Jesus as the Christ/Savior, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, to name a few...)

auto-da-fe

Well, while I don't think your proposal is neccassarily unfeasable, I think it most certainly is with a one year time constraint. Even if you do lump certain subsects together (as mentioned above), you will have to define "exhaustive study". Even just an exhaustive study of Christianity would take more than a year. First study and understand the bible (both KJV and NT), then study and understand the history behind the bible to try and lend credence to the bible, then study and understand the precepts of christianity (vis a vie the bible) and try to lend credence to them, plus maybe a few other aspects about the religion as a whole and try and then you have to either prove or disprove each aspect.

Then you would have to do the same with all other exclusivist religions. Trying to prove or disprove each major aspect or theme. Only then would you be able to make a logical conclusion. Are you trying to find the one that is most plausible, or are you trying to find the one that is true? I personally think that any religion that has a fantasy aspect (i.e., an unknowable god like being, a mystical place of heaven or hell), is going to logically be excluded from the start. Which would mean that the very concept of your proposition is destined to fail.