One Good Reason, Other Not So Good Reasons
Sam Hodges, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, posts in its entirety an essay by United Methodist Church Bishop Timothy W. Whitaker titled "Why should I be a Christian?" His reasons are threefold.
First, "Jesus is alive." He generously concedes that because this claim is so audacious, "we owe it to ourselves to test it. The main way to put it to the test is to read the Gospels in the New Testament. They must be read with an open mind and heart." OK. Jesus is alive because he's got a book that says so. He admits that you have to willingly suspend your disbelief to buy into the claim, but if you're willing to do that, then, Jesus, like Tinkerbell, lives.
Second, "It's the best way to live." He claims that Christian values of "honesty, hospitality, kindness, charity and courage to confront wrong" give our lives meaning or substance. OK. The bishop scores with this one, although he really ought to provide evidence that other religions don't share these values to back up a claim of Christianity being "best" and not just good.
Finally, it's "the way things are." By this Whitaker means that Christianity is consistent with scientific findings. For example, he says that the Big Bang theory is consistent with Christianity's belief in God creating the world out of nothing. I think he misunderstands the Big Bang, which was the singularity out of which everything in the universe emerged, including the universe itself and space and time. The concept of "before" the Big Bang is logically non-sensical. There was no "before" in which a God could have existed waiting for the moment to create the universe. The Big Bang leaves no room for a God, no time for God.
With generous scoring, I'll give Whitaker one out of three. Christian values do offer a good way to live, maybe the best, maybe not, but better than many alternatives. In baseball, a .333 batting average makes you an all-star. In religion, Christianity is probably an all-star, too. But it's a team sport, so leave room for the Hindus and Buddhists and a few other all-stars, too.
6 comments:
"he really ought to provide evidence that other religions don't share these values to back up a claim of Christianity being "best" and not just good."
He also ought to provide evidence that people who follow no religion whatsoever share these values as well.
Good point.
all three reasons are poor. You could just as well substitute the language of any religion for "Jesus," "Gospels," and the like and the statements could be made to be just as ...ahem... true.
Sure, you could substitute other religions and the argument would still be true. But that's because it's good to live by the values that many religions promote. Personally, I find that to be a compelling reason to be a Christian...or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a secular humanist.
You misunderstand me. I said "...ahem... true" to suggest that the version of truth needed to believe the three reasons so stresses any serious notion of truth that its useless.
Those certain "timeless values" aren't true because of those three reasons and they simply aren't necessary.
I tend not to put too much faith on ever knowing the "truth." Instead, I look for facts, theories and methods that are "useful." And the standard religious values of "honesty, hospitality, kindness, charity and courage to confront wrong" do tend to be useful to communities to provide a good life for their members.
Post a Comment