www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Multiple Faiths?

Recently an Atheist friend presented the following question to me:

How would you answer this?

Dear Ray,

I would say that Absolute Truth truly exists but that it is mediated to humans in various, imperfect ways.

Our ability to comprehend and accept it varies and is influenced by cultural and other factors, especially the factor of Divine Grace as we Christians believe.

Faith is always a Gift of Grace. It is not something that can be reasoned out. This is why we need to respect all religions and people of faith as we all struggle toward the Truth.

There are religions that have interpreted their faith systems to mean that people of other faiths can and ought to be persecuted and not tolerated. People of good faith and of all faiths oppose that.

Humans will invariably fight over ideology and when religion is interpreted to be an ideology, that is when wars and intolerance begin.

And atheistic ideologies are not only as capable of being intolerant, in our day and age, atheistic communism is the MOST intolerant ideology there is - intolerant of religion and other economic ideologies, ready to murder millions - and this is the legacy of communism.

Militant atheism is likewise highly intolerant where it should be the most tolerant perspective around.

If atheism is based on the agnostic premise that one "cannot know" about spiritual things, then how can atheism affirm "non-belief?"

Isn't that an affirmation about something that one "cannot know?"

If scientific analysis is the only manner of achieving "what can be known" and accepted, then we are all in trouble.

For example, medical science, far from being "rational and objective," has its own ideologies and has sold itself, generally, to the drug manufacturers etc.

More and more people are now suspicious of medical science and the drugs it proposes for our consumption.

And rightly so.

So atheism has its own ideological expressions and is certainly not clear of them.

Again, the whole notion of "atheism" on the basis of "we cannot know" is a philosophical contradiction. Atheism is an act of faith as well.

Alex

Alex,

A very PC response, but his friend is correct in that only one can be right. In our belief we are right; Buddists, Hindus, WICCANs, etc., are wrong.

Jesus said that the only path to the Father is through Him, not through other paths.

If Hindus are right, then we are wrong. You cannot have multiple gods and one God at the same time.

Atheism, by definition, is not an uncertainty about God, it is a flat-out belief that there is NO God, of any type.

Agnosticism is a belief that the existance of God cannot be known.

mike

Dear Mike,

It was not my intention to be "PC" at all, but to give an intelligent, I hope, and articulate/philosophical explanation to an atheist in the hope of attracting him to Christianity.

I have, in my time as a teacher, helped several atheists to Christ in exactly the same manner.

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement. Your understanding of religious philosophy tends, by the way you write, to be rather positivistic.

The Truth is also not always self-evident. If it was, then all would be following one religion. Truth in Christianity is not something that is arrived at through logic, but through Grace and hearing the Word.

Even Christians themselves are not united in the one Church it is Christ's Will for us to be in.

If we were, our witness before the world would be rather more credible.

But respect and tolerance are ultimately Christian virtues. It is based on love, by which "all men will know you to be My disciples."

Agnosticism comes from the Latin word meaning "not to make a commitment" ultimately.

But to say that one is not making a commitment as emphatically as agnostics CAN mean that one has made precisely just such a commitment - do you see the flaw in their argument?

And there are many kinds of atheists - at the root of which is the view that one cannot make a faith act in God on the basis of certain evidence.

However, one may argue that to say God doesn't exist is an emphatic 'act of faith' as well since there is no evidence that proves He does NOT absolutely exist - again, the philosophical flaw in the atheist argument.

Only in such a way may we hope to witness to those who deny God and Christ.

The best way to counter these positions is on the basis of their own premises. Your premise is simply a non-starter from the get-go.

Alex

Beautifully put, Alex.

Thank you, father Daniel!

God bless you and your beautiful family!!

Alex

Dear Ray:

In the quote that you give us, your atheistic friend did not actually ask a question. He did make a statement that logically incompatible claims cannot all be true. This is certainly correct, on the grounds of the Principle of Contradition alone. So, not all religious beliefs can be true. Now, of course, people of differing religious traditions may have overlapping beliefs and, therefore, we might say that many religions are true in the sense that different systems of religious belief may contain shared beliefs that are true. For example, an orthodox Christian and a Muslim both hold that the universe is created by God from nothing. This belief is part of the doctrine of both religious systems. Yet, of course, this hardly means that all religions are true. It simply means that some differing religions may share true beliefs.

While your friend did not actually ask a question, one may be implied--perhaps this one: Which religious beliefs are true and how can one tell? The way to answer this is by using the God-given gift of intellect to determine which religious worldview is true. If we do this with honesty and faith, then we will be assisted in our quest by grace, for wisdom is the first gift of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, I disagree with those who suggest that choosing between one religious worldview and another is simply a matter of faith. That seems to be fideism: the view that relgious belief is based on faith alone--that is, religious belief is some sort of non-rational assent of the will and not a matter of rational investigation or discernment). This cannot be the case, for then God would have given us the power of intellect in vain.

It is unfortunate that most contemporary discussions of religious pluralism are informed largely by Protestantism, even among Catholics. The ancient tradition of orthodox Christianity would never have made the sort of strict divide between faith and reason that we commonly find today. We know what is true because we have good reason to believe it is true. Sometimes each of us may arrive at what is true by personal scientific investigation, but more often it is on the basis of trustworthy authority. (Note that this is as true in, say, our natural science as it is in religion.) When we understand who God is, then it is clear that His authority is absolutely trustworthy and the rational person will then naturally put faith in it. Thus, the act of faith in divine revelation is eminently rational. Because, of course, our rational capabilities are given to us by God and He sustains us in our proper use of them, the act of faith is also a gift of grace.

Given this, it would seem that the best way for a Christian of the true faith to answer an atheist is to, first, find some common ground: some beliefs shared with the atheist--for example, that there is a diversity of goods or that there is an intelligible order to the universe--and then show that these beliefs imply the existence of a divine source for these goods or this order--that is, a creator. If one can get the believer to see this, then one can argue from the nature of such a Divine Being to His absolute reliability in those things that He reveals about Himself to us. Thus, one can develop faith in the true God and His revelation.

Dr. Michael

Dear Dr Michael,

Thank you, sir, for that erudite exposition!

Of late, I have been having great success with students by bypassing arguments to show the existence of God and going to the notion of faith in God already implanted in us by God.

I don't why, as yet, but this seems to make eminent sense to students who tell me they often lose heart when it comes to faith as they cannot find a rational explanation for the 'faith they already have.'

So rather than moving from "reasons for God's existence to belief in God," we go immediately to "We are given belief in God by God - we embrace Him and now we can talk about Him."

Or to Him!

Whatever works! That's my philosophy!

A good Great Fast to you, sir!

Alex

Thank you all for your help in this discussion! I took many of your responses and formulated a response of my own:

Unfortunately I had to quote much for Dr. Alex. I am not good with the whole Atheist argument so this is helping me out.

I got the response though that I would appreciate some more help on:

I know how to answer the first half using Dominus Iesus but the rest of it I am having problems with.

Dear Alex:

You are quite right that various rhetorical strategies will be suitable for various situations and different audiences. My remarks were focused on Ray's request for a response to the atheist. If one's students are already believers, of course, then a different rhetorical strategy is appropriate.

Let me take this occasion to make an observation: Often people attempt to evangelize by simply insisting on the truth of the faith (or, perhaps, some authoritative source for the faith such as the Scriptures or the Creed). In and of itself, of course, there is nothing wrong with this. As a rhetorical strategy, however, it may not be very effective with some audiences. Moreover, it may also be uncharitable, for it may suggest to some that, unless one is a member of the club (of, say, "Bible believers" or "Pope followers" or whatever) one does not or even cannot know the truth. The only way around this is to appeal to our common ground: that fact that we all share the capacity of reason. This need not, of course, be done in some "heady" way, but the giving of reasons is often the most effective and loving way to introduce the faith to those without it.

Having said this, however, I will immediately qualify it by saying that sometimes the best thing to do is to tell someone that you will pray for their conversion. This may be met with cynicism (I have received this response), but it may also move someone to faith (I have also received this response). This thought came to me while praying the Vespers stichera at Pre-Sanctified Liturgy last night: both the example of prayer--and all that implies in terms of faith--and the expression of care is sometimes enough to bring another to faith. A salutary reminder during the Great Fast.

Dr. Michael

The problem with the question phrased by the Atheist is that it implies a false dichotomy -- that is, that the question can be reduced to a simply true or false. While it is certainly true that if the existence of God is true then anyone who holds that God does not exist must be holding a false belief.

The problem is that we frequently cannot express the important questions in such a precise fashion. This is because we have such limited capabilities when it comes to God and what we can know of Him.

Fr. Deacon Edward

I think sometimes secularists proceed by a kind of via negativa. One approach you might consider is one I borrow from the Catholic convert, Alec Guinness. He mentions that he felt in his own life a need to give honor and worship to God. He believed rightly I think that this is an innate sense found in all of us. The varieties of religion are an indication that there is a positive and fundamental need in rational creatures to find and give due to God. Now, the fact that there are divergences was
an issue the early Fathers had to deal with in writing to pagans and most conceded that truth is found in all religions. God cannot be contained in a box held by one people because his handiwork is written all over the walls so to speak.

Things get a little thornier though because we believe that God was not content to allow confusion to mix with truth. Every myth has an element of truth to it, but there is only one True Myth. This is a point impressed onto C.S. Lewis by his friend J.R.R. Tolkien. The Christian Myth is the true myth and all others are merely preparations for the reception of the Gospel. This idea, inspired as it is by the patristic period, is a perennial truth and was expressed more recently by the Church in Dominus Iesus. Ultimately, it is not productive to get into who is saved and who is not. It, like sin, is a mystery, but we do know that a full and conscientious reception of the Gospels brings many blessings of the spirit. As one poster indicates, the operation of reason must be put into the service of discovery and questioning. Is it realistic to think that the office of Peter would endure for two millennia if it were merely a human institution? Can you think of any king or president who has inherited a two thousand year old office? What about the Jews? Consider for a moment that of all the ancient peoples who've come and gone, a small tribe of people still exists to this very day. I think this is Providence and it is very difficult for a purely secular account to adequately explain their presence among us even now. The hand of Providence is seen in so many places and for all the various propositions we can bring to bear on the question, our faith is not ultimately determined by them. Faith is not an apoditic process, but an act that involves the whole person, imagination, will, intellect, emotions and spirit.
Something that is not emphasized enough when talking with others is that a Christian gains a profound inner conviction and certainty by living a moral life. Augustine indicates that the believer who has clung to Christ throughout his life slowly builds up a kind of certainty about the truths he knows. Virtue is a habit, but the theological virtues when they live in the believer confirm him in his belief and provide him with a grace that is a form of knowledge qualitatively different and superior to ordinary reasoning, even when its concerned with faith questions. The intellect is notoriously fallible and it cannot be itself the measure for determining religious truths. As I indicated, the whole person must commit at some point to embracing the Gospels in their entirety with the entirety of himself. Faith overcomes our own limitations in reasoning and thinking, but it is always in harmony with reason. Faith is a goal that should inform the powers of our souls in their operation and even purifies them so that they can function as part of a human harmony.

As always, the role of grace is a constant and necessary role in attaining certainty of the truth.

HTH

Dear Mike you said:

"If Hindus are right, then we are wrong. You cannot have multiple gods and one God at the same time."

I say:

I believe that humanity needed a belief in something, and that a belief in multiple gods, proceeded our belief in one God. Now having been an athiest in my youth, I decided rather than discounting everything, which leads to nothing, I would 'accept' everything.

Now that comes with the simple notion that if one were to say that they would find a great reward if they went to a certain place, it would be better to 'accept' that it exists and simply turn out to be a fool if it were not true, than to deny that it exists, and lose that reward.

Once one accepts the existance of God, then Grace seems to do the rest.

Zenovia

Dear Ray S:

I find that Protestants who say that one cannot be saved, but only through Jesus, are really saying nothing at all...that is if they are speaking to an unbelieving audience. If it is not explained that Jesus is the 'Word' of God made flesh through God's mercy, and that there is a difference in our God, and the 'god' of others; then why bother to say it. It would not be understood.

Better to say that our God is not a God that lives outside of us, but rather One that comes within us when we open our hearts and accept Him. He will change the very way we reason and think, and that which we previously considered one way, we will now see in a totally different light...And that by doing so, He continuously perfects our very being so that we ourselves become as God.

Zenovia

I would bring up the fact that human beings can know some basic truths about God through their hearts and through reason-- natural law-- due to the fact that we are made in His image.

But because of original sin, man's relationship with God and with creation has been damaged-- we need positive divine law, which is God's direct revelation. Not all human beings can hear or accept some aspects of divine revelation. This explains why there are some common elements in different religions, and why varying degrees of truth are found in all.

I would add that you could point out that simply believing in something sincerely doesn't mean it's true. I could be completely convinced that the moon is made of gouda cheese, and I'd be sincerely wrong...

God bless,

Karen