“I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
excerpts from the book
“People sometimes trip over the truth, but most of them he gets up and rushes on as if nothing had happened.’ – Winston Churchill
It seems that many things cannot accept the truth these days. On the one hand, we demand truth in practically all areas of our lives. For example from:
• our loved ones (no one wants their husband or child to lie to them)
• doctors (we want them to prescribe the correct medications and perform the correct operations)
• courts (we want them to condemn only the truly guilty)
• employers (we want them to tell us the truth and pay us fairly)
• airlines (we require truly safe aircraft and truly sober pilots)
In fact, we demand the truth in almost all areas of life that affect our finances, relationships, safety or health. On the other hand, despite our unshakable demands for truth in these areas, many of us claim that we are not interested in the truth when it comes to morality or religion. Many even completely reject the idea that any religion might be true. As you may have noticed, there is a huge contradiction. Why do we demand the truth in everything except morality and religion? Why do we say, ‘This applies to you, but not to me’ when we talk about morality or religion, but we never think of such nonsense when we talk to the banker about our money or the doctor about our health?
Although few will admit it, our rejection of religious and moral truth is often voluntary rather than intellectual— We just don’t want to be responsible for any moral norms or religious doctrine. So we blindly accept the self-destructive claims of politically correct intellectuals who tell us that the truth does not exist, that everything is relative, that there are no absolute values, that everything is a matter of opinion, that we should not judge, and that religion is about faith, not about Facts! Perhaps Augustin was right when he said that we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us. Maybe we can’t bear the truth.
To solve our schizophrenia, we must deal with four questions regarding the truth:
1. What is true?
2. Can the truth be known?
3. Can the truth about God be known?
4. And so what? Who cares the truth?
We will deal with these questions in this and the following chapter.
What is the truth? Truth of Truth
What is the truth? very simply put, the truth is ‘saying things as they are’. When the Roman Governor Pilate asked Jesus almost 2000 years ago ‘What is the truth?’, he did not wait for Jesus’ answer. Instead, Pilate immediately behaved as if he knew at least some of the truth. He declared about Jesus: ‘I found no guilt in this man’ (see John 18:38). By liberating Jesus, Pilate ‘said how it is’. Truth can also be defined as ‘what corresponds to its object’ or ‘what describes the true state of affairs’. Pilate’s judgment was true because it corresponded to his subject; He described the exact state of affairs. Jesus was truly innocent.
Unlike what is taught in many public schools, truth is not relative but Absolute. If something is true, it is true for all people, in all circumstances and in all places. All statements about truth are absolute, narrow (tight) and exclusive.
Think about the statement ‘everything is true’. This is an absolute, narrow and exclusive statement. He excludes his opposite (ie, he claims that the statement ‘everything is not true’ is incorrect). In fact, all truths exclude their opposites. Even religious truths. This was comically shown a few years ago when I (norm) discussed with religious humanist Michael Constantine Kolenda. Of the many atheists I discussed with, he was one of the few who actually read my book Christian Apologetics before the debate. When it was his turn, Kolenda picked up my book and said, “I read Dr. Geisler’s book. Do you know what he believes? He believes that Christianity is true and everything that goes against it is false! These Christians are very narrow-minded people!K Kolenda also wrote a book that I had read beforehand. It was called Religion without God (which is something like romance without a partner!). When it was my turn, I picked up Kolend’s book and declared: ‘I read Dr. Kolenda’s book. You know what he believes? He believes that humanism is true and everything that goes against it is false! These humanists are very narrow-minded people!” The audience laughed because they understood what it was. The humanistic claims of truth are as narrow-minded as the Christian claims of truth. Because if H (humanism) is true, then everything that contradicts H is false. Likewise, if it is K (Christianity) true, then everything that contradicts k is untrue.
There are many other truths about the truth. Here are a few of them:
• Truth appears, not inventing. It exists regardless of whether anyone knows about it. (Gravity existed before Newton.)
• Truth is supra-cultural; If something is true, it is true for all people, in all places and at all times (2 + 2 = 4 for everyone, everywhere and at all times).
• Truth is unchangeable, although our beliefs about the truth change. (When we began to believe that the earth was round and not flat, the truth about the earth did not change, only our beliefs about the earth changed.)
• beliefs cannot change the fact, no matter how sincerely they are held. (Someone can honestly believe that the world is flat, but that only means they are sincerely wrong.)
• True not affected by the attitude of the one who professes it. (Arrogant man does not make the truth he confesses to, untrue. A humble person does not make the mistake he professes to be true.)
• All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that seem relative are in fact absolute. (For example, ‘I, Frank Turk, I feel the warmth of November 20, 2003’ may seem relative true, but in reality it is an absolute truth for everyone and everywhere, that Frank Turk had a feeling of warmth that day.)
In short, conflicting beliefs are possible, but conflicting truths are not possible. We can believe that everything is true, but we cannot do everything true. That seems pretty obvious. But How do we deal with the modern claim that there is no truth?
…
self-destructive statements
If someone told you, ‘I have one observation for you that will certainly change your ability to quickly and clearly recognize false claims and false philosophies that permeate our culture,’ would you be interested in it? That’s what we’re about to do. If we had to choose the only thinking ability as the most valuable we have learned During our many years of study and graduate education, it would be this: How Recognize and refute self-destructive statements.
An incident from a recent radio show will show us what we mean by self-destructive statements. The liberal host of the show, Jerry, received phone calls on the topic of morality. After listening to the numerous callers who boldly claimed that a certain moral attitude was correct, one caller blurted out, “Jerry! Jerry! There is no such thing as truth!’ I (Frank) rushed to the phone and started dialing the number furiously. occupied. occupied. occupied. I wanted to call and say, ‘Jerry! Ask the guy who said, ‘there is no such thing as truth’ – Is it true?’
A self-destructive claim is one that does not meet its own standard.
As you can understand, the claim of the caller ‘Truth does not exist’ pretends to be true and thus itself denies. It’s like saying, “I don’t know a word of Czech.’ If someone had said that, of course you would have answered: ‘Wait! Your statement must be false, because you just made it in Czech!’
Self-destructive statements are commonly found in our postmodern culture, and Once you hone your ability to uncover them, you will become an absolutely fearless defender of truth.
I’m sure you’ve heard people say things like, ‘All truth is relative!’ and ‘There are no absolute truths!’ You will now be equipped to disprove such stupid statements by simply You will discover that they do not meet their own criteria. In other words, by turning a self-destructive statement against yourself, you can reveal its meaninglessness.
The tactic of finding self-destructive statements helps the relativists and postmodernists of our time to realize that their arguments cannot bear their own weight. Thanks to that, you look like a super genius!
Let’s take this tactic to college to show you what we mean. What amazes us is that parents all over the world They pay thousands of dollars on college tuition so their sons and daughters can be taught the “truth” that there is no truth, not to mention other self-destructive postmodern claims such as:
‘All truth is relative’ (is it relative truth?);
“There are no absolute values” (are you absolutely sure?) and
‘It’s true for you, but not for me!’ (Is this statement true only for you, or is it true for all?)
‘True for you but not for me’ may be the mantra of our time, but that’s not how the world really works. Try telling your bank clerk, police or tax office and see how far you go! Of course, these modern mantras are false (false).
Can the truth be known? unabled The story of Don
If you want to talk to someone about God, you can ask them the following questions:
1. May I ask you a spiritual question? And 2. If you died tonight and stood before God and God asked you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’, what would you answer?
Most people are curious enough to answer positively to question 1. As for the second question, most non-believers usually answer ‘good deeds’. – Something like: ‘God will accept me because I am basically a good person. I have not killed anyone, I go to church sometimes, I give to the poor…’
In that case, you can answer with the gospel (literally ‘good news’): That we all (including us) have not reached God’s perfect standard, and no good deeds can erase the fact that we have already sinned; But the good news is that we can be saved (saved) from punishment by believing in Jesus who was punished instead of us.
Although this technique is very successful, some non-believers do not answer these two questions as one might expect. For example, one evening I decided (NORM) to go with another member of my church. It happened like this: we knocked on the door and a man opened the door for us. I shook his hand and said, ‘Hello! My name is Norm Geisler, this is my partner Ron and we are from the church at the end of the street.’
‘I’m a don,’ replied the man, quickly looking at us.
I immediately tackled question #1: ‘Don, could we ask you a spiritual question?’
‘Ask,’ said Don boldly, obviously eager for the biblical sermon as a dessert.
I asked him question number 2: ‘Don, if you died tonight and stood before God and God asked you, ‘Why should I let you go to my heaven?’, what would you answer?’
Don retorted, ‘I would say to God, ‘Why shouldn’t you let me go to your heaven?” I swallowed in vain… I had no answer to that. After a second of panic, I quickly prayed and replied:
‘Don, if we knocked on your door and wanted to enter your house and you would say to us, ‘Why should I let you into my house?’ And we would answer: ‘Why shouldn’t you let us go?’, what would you say?’ Don pointed his finger at my chest and replied sternly, ‘I would tell you where to go!’
I immediately replied, ‘That’s exactly what God will tell you!’
Don looked amazed for a second, but then he narrowed his eyes and said, “To tell you the truth: I don’t believe in God.
I’m an atheist.’ ‘Are you an atheist?’ ‘Exactly!’ ‘You are absolutely certain that God does not exist?’ I asked him.
He hesitated and said, ‘No, I’m not absolutely sure. I think it’s possible that God exists.’
‘So you’re not actually an atheist, but an agnostic, because an atheist says, ‘I know God doesn’t exist,’ and the agnostic says, ‘I don’t know if God exists’.’
‘Yeah… Okay, I guess I’m an agnostic,’ he admitted.
That was real progress. The only question we got from atheism to agnosticism! But I still had to find out what the agnostic Don actually is.
I asked him, ‘Don, what kind of agnostic are you?’
He laughed and asked, ‘What do you mean?’ (He probably thought, ‘I was an atheist a minute ago – I have no idea what kind of agnostic I am now!’)
‘There are two kinds of agnostics,’ I explained. “There is ordinary agnostic, who says he is unsure and then exists a stubborn agnostic, who says it can’t nothing know for sure.’
Don was sure of that. He said, ‘I am the stubborn one. We cannot know anything for sure.’
I realized that his claim was counterproductive and used a tactic to reveal a self-destructive claim and asked, “Done, If you say you can’t know anything for sure, then how can you know for sure?”
He looked confused and asked, ‘What do you mean?’
I explained it differently: ‘How can you know for sure that you can’t know anything for sure?’
I saw how he was running out of it, but I decided to add one more point: “Besides, Don, You can’t be skeptical about everything, because that would mean that you would have to doubt skepticism as well.’
He retreated. ‘Okay, I guess I can really know something for sure. I have to be an ordinary agnostic.’
Now we really moved somewhere. With only a few questions, Don went from atheism through stubborn agnostism to ordinary agnosticism.
I continued, “When you now admit that You may know, why don’t you know if God exists?’
He shrugged and said, ‘Probably because no one showed me any evidence.’
Now I asked a million dollar question: ‘Would you be willing to look at some evidence?’
‘Sure,’ he replied.
That’s the best kind of person to talk to: someone who is willing to honestly look at the evidence. Willingness is essential. Evidence cannot convince someone who is not willing.
Since Don was willing, we gave him Frank Morrison’s book Who Moved the Stone?2 Morrison was a skeptic who decided to write a book refuting Christianity, but instead the evidence convinced him that Christianity was indeed true.
We visited Don shortly after. He called the evidence presented by Morison ‘very convincing’. A few weeks later, in the middle of the study of the Gospel of John, Don accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. Today, Don Deacon in the Baptical Church near St. Louis in Missouri.
…
Can all religions be true?
The moral lesson of the story is that complete agnosticism or skepticism is self-destructive. Agnostics and skeptics claim that the truth cannot be known, but at the same time they claim that their opinion is true. That doesn’t work. (it’s a self-destructive statement)
So we decided that the truth can be known. In fact, this statement is undeniable. But what does this mean? Can’t all religions be true?
Unfortunately, it is not only the secular world that is confused by this question; Even some church pastors have trouble with it. Seminar Professor Ronald Nash has heard about one example of this phenomenon. He told us about his student, who had returned home to Bowling Green in Kentucky a few years ago for the Christmas holiday. During the holidays, this student, who believes in the Bible, decided on an adventure one Sunday and visited a church he had never attended before. However, as soon as the pastor uttered the first sentence of his sermon, the student realized that he had made a mistake – the pastor spoke contrary to the Bible.
‘The theme of my sermon today,’ began the pastor, ‘all religious beliefs are true!’ The student squirmed in his place, while the pastor continued, assuring each member of the congregation that every religious faith they profess was ‘true!’ When the sermon ended, the student wanted to slip out unnoticed, but the pastor waited at the door and hugged every member of the congregation passing through. ‘Son,’ exclaimed the pastor as he greeted the student, ‘where are you from?’ ‘I’m actually from Bowling Green, sir. I’m home on vacation from the seminary.’ ‘Theological seminary! Okay. What religious beliefs do you have, son?’ ‘I’d rather not say it, sir.’ ‘Why not, son?’ ‘Because I don’t want to offend you.’ ‘Oh, son, you can’t offend me. Besides It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are – it’s true. So what do you believe in?’ ‘Okay,’ the student stepped down. He leaned over to the pastor, put his hand in front of his mouth and whispered, ‘Lord, I believe you will go to hell!’ Pastor blushed and tried to find the answer: “I, …I must have made a mistake! All religious beliefs they cannot be true, because I definitely don’t agree with yours!’
As the pastor realized, religious beliefs cannot all be true, because many religious eddies contradict each other – they teach opposites. For example, conservative Christians believe that only those who accept Jesus as their Savior can go to heaven and that it is a gift from God that must be accepted. (And anyone who wants to can accept it.) By this grace you are saved through faith. It’s not of you – it’s God’s gift; It’s not from deeds that no one will brag. Ephesians 2:8 and 9 There is no salvation in anyone else – there is no other name given to people in the world (than Jesus), in which we could be saved!’ Acts 4:12
It is often overlooked, but many Muslims believe the same about non-Muslims – they too are headed for hell. And Hindus generally believe that everyone, regardless of their beliefs, is trapped in an endless cycle of reincarnation based on deeds. These opposing beliefs cannot all be true. In fact, the world’s religions have more conflicting vortexes than complementary to each other. The idea that all religions teach basically the same thing—that we should love each other—indicates a serious misunderstanding of world religions. While most religions have some kind of similar moral code because God put good and evil into our conscience (we will talk about this in Chapter 7), They do not agree on practically any important question, including the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell and creation!
When you think about it, then God’s essence, the essence of man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell and creation are the most important questions! Here are a few of the big differences:
• Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in different versions of the theistic god, while most Hindus and New Age followers believe that everything that exists is part of impersonal, pantheistic strength, which they call God.
• Many Hindus believe evil is a complete illusion, while Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that Evil is real.
• Christians believe that people are saved (go to heaven) by grace (a gift from God), while all other religions, if they believe in salvation at all, teach some kind of salvation by good deeds (the definition of ‘good’ and from which man is saved, be very differs).
These are just a few of the many major differences. So much for the idea that all religions teach basically the same things!
Comment: So if someone tells you that all religions are basically the same, you can say: That’s pretty stupid! They don’t even agree on the most important things like God, Hell, Heaven and who gets there, the creation and essence of man. For example, Christianity says that people are sinful by nature Surely I was sinful from birth. Psalm 51:5 (NIV) and All have sinned and are far away from God. Romans 3:23 Logically, if they were all good inherently, then why would Jesus die for them?
Truth vs. tolerance
While most religions have some true faiths, not all religious beliefs may be true because they are mutually exclusive – they teach opposites. In other words, some religious beliefs must be false. But that must not be said in today’s America (and part of the world above all above the equator). You should be ‘tolerant’ of all religious beliefs. And in our today’s culture of tolerance, it no longer means to endure something that you consider untrue (after all, You don’t tolerate things you agree with). Nowadays Tolerance now means that you should accept every faith as true! In a religious context this is referred to as religious pluralism – The belief that all religions are true.
There are several problems associated with this new definition of tolerance. First, let’s say that we are grateful to have religious freedom in this country and do not believe in the legislative imposition of religion (see our book ‘Legislative regulation of morality’ – Legislating morality).3
We are well aware of the dangers of religious intolerance and we believe that we would were to receive and respect people who have different religious beliefs. But this does not mean that we should personally accept the impossible idea that all religious beliefs are true. Given that each other ejectable Religious beliefs cannot be true, there is no point in pretending to be. In fact, on an individual level, it can even be dangerous. If Christianity is true, then it is dangerous for your eternal fate not to be a Christian. Likewise, if Islam is true, then it is dangerous for your eternal fate not to be a Muslim.
second, the claim that ‘You should not question someone else’s religious beliefs’, is in itself a religious belief for pluralists. But this belief is as exclusive and ‘tolerant’ as any religious beliefs of a Christian or Muslim. In other words, pluralists think that All non-pluralist beliefs are bad. pluralists So they are as dogmatic and closed as anyone else who publicly declares the truth. A They want everyone who disagrees with them to see things like them.
Third, The prohibition of questioning religious beliefs is also an absolute moral attitude. Why should we not question religious beliefs? Would it be immoral? And if so, by whose scale? Do pluralists have any good reasons that support their belief that we should not question religious beliefs, Or is it just their personal opinion they want to impose on the rest of us? If they cannot give us good reasons for such a moral standard, why should we allow them to impose it on us? A Why do pluralists even try to impose this moral attitude on us? This is not very ‘tolerant’ of them.
Fourth, the Bible commands Christians to question religious beliefs. For example, in verse in 1 John 4:1 it is written: Beloved, do not believe everything that is spiritual, but distinguish whether those spirits are of God. She went out into the world a lot false prophets. (also Deut. 13:1-5; Gal 1:8; 2 Cor 11:13; etc.).
Since Christians have a religious belief that they should question religious beliefs, then the pluralists should – according to their own standard – accept this Christian belief as well. But of course they don’t. The irony is that pluralists— advocates of new tolerance – are not really tolerant at all. They ‘tolerate’ only those who already agree with them, which by any definition is not a tolerance.
Fifth, the claim of the pluralists that we should not question religious beliefs, is derived from the false cultural ban to pass judgment. Prohibition of judging is false because it does not meet its own standard: “You shouldn’t judge” is a judgment in itself! (Pluralists misinterpret Jesus’ comments on judgment[Matouš 7:1-5]. Jesus did not forbid to judge as such, but only judge hypocritically.) In fact, each – pluralist, Christian, atheist, agnostic – makes judgments. So the question is not whether we pass judgment, but Whether we make the right judgments.
Finally, are the pluralists ready to accept the religious beliefs of Muslim terrorists as true – especially when these beliefs say that all non-Muslims (including the pluralists) should be killed? Are they ready to accept as true religious beliefs of those who believe in child sacrifice or other heinous acts? We hope not.
Even if we should respect the rights of others to believe what they want, it would be foolish and perhaps unloving to silently accept every religious faith as true.
Why is it unloving? Because If Christianity is true, then it would be unloving to indicate to anyone that its conflicting religious beliefs are also true. Confirmation of such a mistake could keep them on the road to damnation. instead, If Christianity is true, we should kindly tell them the truth, for only the truth can set them free.
I used to be blind but now I see
What does the enormous diversity of religious beliefs tell us about the truth in religion? At first glance, it might seem that the existence of so many conflicting beliefs only reinforces the parable of the elephant, namely that the truth cannot be known in religion. But it’s the exact opposite. To refresh your memory: In this parable six blind men He examines the elephant. Each of them feels a different part of the elephant and thus comes to a different conclusion about the object in front of them.
One grabs the tusk and says, ‘That’s a spear!’ Another holds his trunk and says, ‘It’s a snake!’ He who hugs the leg says, ‘It’s a tree!’ A blind man holding his tail thinks, ‘I have a rope!’ The one who feels the ear believes, ‘That’s a fan!’ And the one who leans on the side of the elephant is sure: ‘It’s a wall!’ These blind people are said to represent
world religions because each of them came to a different conclusion about what they perceive. Like every blind person, we are told that no religion is right. Religious truth is relative to each individual. It is subjective, not objective. This may seem convincing until you ask one question: “What is the view of the one telling the parable?’ Hmmmm, let’s look at the one who tells the parable… He seems to have an objective view of the whole process because he sees the blind people are wrong. That’s right! In fact, he wouldn’t know that the blind would be wrong if he didn’t have an objective view of what was right! So If the one who tells the parable may have an objective view, why can’t the blind have it? They could – If the blind suddenly had their sights come back, they would also realize that they were initially wrong. In front of them is really an elephant, and not a wall, a fan or a rope.
We too can see the truth in religion. Unfortunately, many of us who deny that there is truth in religion are not actually blind, but only intentionally blind. We may not want to admit that there is truth in religion, Because the truth will convict us. But if we open our eyes and stop hiding behind the self-destructive nonsense that the truth cannot be known, then we will be able to see the truth as well. And not only the truth in the areas where we demand it – money, relationships, health, law, etc. – but also the truth in religion. As the blind man healed by Jesus said, ‘I used to be blind, but now I see.’
A skeptic may argue: ‘Wait a moment! The parable of the elephant may be a bad parable, but this does not yet prove that the truth in religion can be known. You have proven that the truth can be known, but not necessarily the truth in religion. In fact, they did not prove David Hume and Immanuel Kant that the idea of truth in religion is false?’ Not at all, and in the next chapter we will explain why.
Summary
1. Despite the relativism that radiates from our culture, it is True Absolute, Exclusive and Knowable. Denying the absolute truth and its knowability is counterproductive.
the 2. the ability to refute self-destructive statements against oneself, helps to reveal counterproductive (and therefore false) statement, which are so common today. These include claims such as: ‘There is no truth!’ byIs it true?); ‘All truth is relative!’ byIs this relative truth?); and ‘You can’t tell the truth!’ bySo how do you know?). In principle, it Any statement that cannot be confirmed (because it contradicts itself) must be false. Relativists are defeated by their own logic.
3. Truth not depend on our feelings or preferences. something is true whether we like it or not.
4. Contrary to the general opinion, the main world religions ‘not all teach the same things’. have major differences and only superficial agreements. All religions cannot be true because they teach opposites.
5. Since logically not all religions can be true, We cannot agree with the new definition of tolerance that requires us to accept the impossible idea that all religious creeds are true. We are to respect the faith of others, but to tell them the truth with love. After all, if you really love and respect people, you will tactfully tell them the truth about information that may have consequences for their eternity.
Continuing in Part 2
