Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason ministries developed a great tactic to use when a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness comes knocking on your door. It’s easy to remember, and it doesn’t require that you know much about either religion:
First, I ask them, “If you discovered you were mistaken about your faith, would you be willing to
change your religion?” This question is critical because it exposes whether or not they’re a genuine truth seeker. They are presumably there to show you’re mistaken about your faith and should change it after they show you the truth. If not, then I point out how their position is unreasonable and thank them for coming to visit. I try to avoid spending time with people who are not genuine
truth seekers and are not willing to follow the evidence where it leads. You can waste a lot of time talking to people who are closed to the truth.Second, I ask them, “Can you offer me three objective reasons or evidences for why you believe your religion is true?” Notice this question immediately shifts the burden of proof to them, where it belongs. It takes the pressure off you and gives you valuable insight into their rationale. Remember, they’ve come to you. You’re under no obligation to jump through their hoops and answer their questions. Just be sure to keep them on track and not let them deviate from the question at hand. They’re often hard pressed to offer you convincing objective reasons. Mormons often ask you to pray and ask God to reveal the truth to you. This is not an objective reason or evidence, however, so don’t let them get away with offering it as an answer.[1]
[1]Alan Shlemon, “Making an Impact Without Knowing Very Much”; available from http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/07/making-an-impac.html; Internet; accessed 30 July 2007.
Thinking to Believe 
August 1, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Jason, I suspect you won’t agree with this, but…
Why would “objective reasons” be desired in seeking religious truth? Doesn’t the beauty of a religion reside within its subjectivity – the personal pull it has on our emotions, intuitions, and yes, our minds.
Just curious to know, what are the “three objective reasons or evidences” for Christian faith?
LikeLike
August 2, 2007 at 7:08 am
A better approach. Buy some Jack Chick tracts about the Mormons/JWs and keep them near your door.
LikeLike
August 2, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Why would objective reasons be needed for what items you choose to eat? Shouldn’t the beauty of dining be based upon the subjective preference and intuitions of the eater? Why bother with objectivity in regard to toxicity, for example. Those toadstools look scrumptious!
Why should objective reasons destroy the beauty of subjectivity in medicinal treatment of diseases? There’s a certain romantic nature to blood-letting, leeches, and such like. Furthermore, the beauty of treating cancer with the treatment of the patient’s choosing has got to be preferable to chemotherapy. Perhaps Twinkies suit the subjective intuition better…
In my off-the-cuff opinion, the only ultimate “beauty of a religion” is if it corresponds to reality in its claims, thereby correctly directing its adherents to the ultimate, desired destination or state in which they are expecting to arrive or “discover themselves.” If it doesn’t correspond to reality – particularly as it relates to God (or however one defines these Ultimate Issues) it is no more beautiful than maggots writhing upon the decomposing carcass of roadkill skunk that still reeks of its spray stench.
How’s that for a personal pull on the ol’ intuition of my religious beliefs? Beautiful, baby, just beautiful…
LikeLike
August 3, 2007 at 9:59 am
Aaron G asks a good question. Are there any objective proofs for Christianity in general? For Oneness?
Although most (not all) scholars assume that Jesus was an actual historical person, those who look at the objective truth about Jesus (“the historical Jesus”) always conclude that he was just a man.
You can cite rumors of miracles, but so could the JWs and Mormons. So what are three objective proofs that Christianity is true?
LikeLike
August 3, 2007 at 10:07 am
First, I ask them, “If you discovered you were mistaken about your faith, would you be willing to
change your religion?” This question is critical because it exposes whether or not they’re a genuine truth seeker. They are presumably there to show you’re mistaken about your faith and should change it after they show you the truth. If not, then I point out how their position is unreasonable and thank them for coming to visit. I try to avoid spending time with people who are not genuine
truth seekers and are not willing to follow the evidence where it leads. You can waste a lot of time talking to people who are closed to the truth.
I suspect that different people would have different reactions to this question. The question implies that the questioner believes the visitor is mistaken about his beliefs.
I think there are extremely few people, of any faith, who would truly change their beliefs because they discovered they were mistaken. They might ignore or deny the facts and rely on faith, slightly alter their beliefs to conform to the facts, or twist the facts to fit their beliefs.
Very few true believers switch from one religion to another. All religions have individuals studying their beliefs intensely, yet they all conclude that the religion they were born into happened to be correct.
Arthur
LikeLike
August 3, 2007 at 10:11 am
Aaron,
Your suspicions were correct!
What do you mean when you say the beauty of a religion lies in its subjectivity? Do you only mean to say that religion is more fulfilling than believing in, say mathematics and working out mathematical proofs, because religion not only appeals to our mind, but also to our intuitions and emotions; i.e. it is holistic? If so, I would agree that this is a (not the) beauty of religion.
Or do you mean to say the beauty of religion is found in how it affects the subject who embraces it, irrespective of whether or not what the practitioner believes is true to reality—that what matters most is how religion affects the believer, not whether the beliefs of the adherent correspond to reality? If so, I could not disagree more.
You asked why objective reasons would be desired in seeking religious truth? Because (1) the concept of “truth” has to do with propositions, (2) every religion makes propositional truth claims, (3) and propositions are either true or false when compared against reality (even if one argues that it is difficult, if not impossible to compare those propositions against reality given our epistemic limitations, the fact remains that the propositions themselves are either true or false in an objective sense.).
Furthermore, (4) religions offer competing and contradictory propositional truth-claims. Given (5) the logical law of non-contradiction it is obvious that they cannot all be true. To determine which religious claims are true and which are false, we must test them. One of the tests we use to determine if something is true is the test of rationality. We use our rational faculties to find objective reasons to either affirm or deny the truth-claim. Since objective reasons help us determine which of the many religious claims are true, and determining which religion is true will benefit us spiritually, objective reasons should be sought. In short, objective reasons are important because truth is important, and objective reasons help us sort out truth from error.
to be continued in next post…
LikeLike
August 3, 2007 at 10:12 am
continued….
So what are three objective reasons to believe the Christian faith? In order:
(1) Natural theology. The kalam cosmological argument points to a monotheistic, personal God as the cause of the universe. (gets one down to monotheism)
(2) The resurrection. It is the best explanation for the facts that even non-Christian historians have deemed to be historical. If Jesus rose from the dead (which would be an objective fact), it verifies his claims and teachings (narrows it down to Christianity)
(3) The Bible: It is reliable in its portrayal of history, as confirmed by archaeology and comparisons to other historical sources. It is also accurate in many of its predictions. Thus, it bears the marks of divine revelation. (narrows it down to Christianity)
Even if one disagrees that any of these three are good reasons (I would beg to differ with them, but…), the fact remains that they are objective, and the topic of public discourse. They show that I am Christian, not because it fits my personal religious taste, but because I have reasons to think Christianity is actually true in addition to my personal religious experience.
Jason
LikeLike
August 3, 2007 at 10:17 am
Max,
You sure have a way with words! Very descriptive. Ha!
Obvioiusly I agree with you on this one. You said in one post what it took me to say in four. Surprised? Ha!
Jason
LikeLike
August 3, 2007 at 10:36 am
Arthur,
I provided my three objective reasons in my response to Aaron.
In regards to miracle-claims, claims are not enough. We have to ask what evidence there is to believe that what is claimed to have happened, really happened. In the case of the resurrection, we have an abundance of reasons to think this event really happened. That’s not the case with all miracles.
In regards to Jesus, establishing His existence is easy. Establishing His deity is not. His human existence could be seen, while His divine existence could only be perceived by those who had the faith to perceive it.
But there is a sense in which scholarship does establish the deity of Christ. It is an indirect, inductive reasoning process, however. Consider this. Archaeology and textual criticism can tell us whether Jesus’ purported words and deeds we read about in the NT appear today in the same form as written by the author. Historiography can tell us whether there are good reasons to think that what Jesus is purported to have said and done, He really said and did (that these reliable copies concern real historical events, not myths). It can also tell us if there is good reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead or not.
If there are good reasons to believe to believe that which was written has not been changed, and good reason to believe Jesus actually said and did the things written of Him, and there are good reasons to believe He rose from the dead, then there is good reason to think that Jesus is God. Why? Because Jesus understood himself to be divine, spoke as if he were divine, and acted as if he were divine. He also foretold his own death and resurrection. When he was raised from the dead, it confirmed that what He taught was true. If it was true, then He was who he claimed to be: God in human existence.
Jason
LikeLike
August 3, 2007 at 10:41 am
Arthur,
Yes, they might react negatively to it if one does not preface the question by publicly applying it to themselves. One might say, “I understand that I could be mistaken about my beliefs. If I am mistaken, and you are able to demonstrate this to me, as well as demonstrate why your view is true, I would gladly abandon my beliefs and embrace yours. Are you willing to do the same if the shoe is found to be on the other foot?”
I agree. Few people are willing to follow the evidence to where it leads. It’s a sad testimony to the perversion of the human will.
Yes, Christians are not the only ones to engage in apologetics for their worldview. Others do as well. The question is not Do they have reasons for what they believe?, but rather How good are the reasons for what they believe?
Jason
LikeLike